Actually, for the purposes of the question posed by the OP, it does “cut it.”
Their home, their rules. You are a guest. You are obligated by common courtesy (and sometimes even the law) to either leave your firearm in your car, or at home.
“Because I said so” is all the justification any homeowner need give to anyone entering their home. It need not be based on any rational decision making process; it need not be based on any fact-based reality about firearms.
Their home, their rules.
Why shouldn’t it? Should I need a “rational” reason for a “no solicitors” or “no hunting” policy? Why is gun carrying somehow a special case where I should have to justify the conditions under which you’d be trespassing?
Look, man. I’m a gun owner, I have a concealed permit. Guns are SCARY to some people, just the same as you might be afraid of spiders or needles or heights or Margaret Cho naked on a cold day. No one is required to justify themselves to you–especially since, if you were not a polite person, that would potentially invite a knock-down drag out if you decided to for example argue that their position wasn’t actually rational.
If you’re a close enough friend that you’d feel comfortable even discussing it, you probably already knew they were scared of guns or were wary of guns or disliked gun anyway, so why would you be a dick about it?
Sigh… In the real world, I’m perfectly fine with people making inane house rules and in the interest of manners, I’d likely follow them, no questions asked.
However, on an internet discussion board, in a post specifically about this situation, repeatedly saying “because I said so” is not sufficient because its not in the spirit of a friggin’ discussion board! Why is discussing a hypothetical situation on a message board turn into vehemently defending your rights as a homeowner? Seriously, it’s akin to starting a thread about reasons vegetarians became vegetarians and all the responses being “because I wanted to, and that’s that!” Sure, it’s a reason, but why are you even on a discussion board in the first place if you’re just going to sit there and repeatedly type the same thing over and over without any discussion behind it?
The discussion is about the etiquette of asking, though, not the rationality thereof, and that’s where a lot of people are apparently getting seriously hung up.
That is, some of us got pretty far afield from “yes, it’s within the bounds of etiquette” into “but why would you want to do such a thing”, and it seems like arguing the rationality of such a personal ban is not really pertinent.
Of course, we ARE discussing it, but your use of the term “inane” tells me you’re not really interested in lending credence to any statement that boils down to “I don’t need to learn about guns, or safe handling thereof, therefore I limit all guns on my property in the interests of protecting myself from unsafe gun owners. The effects on safe gun owners are of no concern to me.” That’s a perfectly rational statement, nothing terribly “because I said so” about it except when declaring the precondition of “I will not learn to tell the difference between safe and unsafe gun handling.”
I would happily fuck Margaret Cho’s head off, and I’d love every second of it.
A tool that needs to be kept ready at all times, because you may need to put a bullet into something at every given second of the day. You may decide to remove the firearm from your person, even just for a second, but… that’s when they get you.
Those people that we need to be shooting tend to not follow any pattern, or strike at any certain time. The time is always.
Places you may need to be able to shoot something:
In the shower
On the toilet
While preparing any meal, Holiday meals are of course included
Eating any meal
Going to your car
While getting the mail
Mowing one’s lawn
Cleaning one’s gutters
Paying bills
Watching TV
Telling your kid(s) bedtime stories
In bed with your SO
Surfing the web
Talking on the phone
Ordering a pizza
Shopping
Mailing a package
Going to Church
Attending a Wedding
Attending a Funeral
Attending an auction
Attending a party of any sort
Going to a restaurant
Getting take out
Going to a drive thru
Stopping at a hot dog stand
Getting “Street Meat” of any kind
Going to a strip club
Going to the library
Going to the video store (people still do that?)
Getting your oil changed
Buying a part for your car
Booking a vacation
Vaccinating your pet
Perusing furniture store for deals
Going to Goodwill to donate stuff
Ice cream trip for the kids
This list could be 10 miles long if it included every possible situation that a person could be in. If the best time to be carrying is “always”, then I suppose one could come up with reasons for having to carry in the above situations.
If carrying a gun, and using it to shoot a potential attacker, robber, what have you, is that common a thing… what are the stats for justified self defense shootings that have actually happened?
That;s not an answer.
So you don’t consider a child shooting herself and dying to be a lot.
You know, having conversed with you on this subject, I can now see clearly why people see gun owners as sociopaths t be feared. This attitude is frankly psychotic
Dude the case where the child took the gun form the sleeping cop involved a shoulder holster firmly attached to the body.
Deny of reality much?
That’s not an answer. You said that my response is irrational. Tell us how it’s irrational. Saying that you accept is doesn’t in any way adress your claim that it’s irrational.
And how did you come to that conclusion? To reach such a conclusion you must know what the risk is. So provide us with those figures please. Otherwise you’re just making shit up.
I don’t know. How often i it? ou must know, since you clima to have evaluated the risk.
And you wouldn’t be just making shit up on this subject, would you? So you must have the figures available.
Nobody is freaking out.
Unconcealed, unsecured weapons result in far fewer deaths than swimming pools. So why are you freaking out about unconcealed, unsecured guns?
Your entire argument here is based on a supposition that people can only worry about the biggest risks and can’t take any steps at all to address smaller, unrelated risks.
In short, it’s lunacy.
Well it took me a months and four requests for you to stop weaseling away from the questions.
You think that a child shooting herself in the chest is silly do you?
Once again, you’ve made it abundantly clear why we all families should fear gun owners.
There is nothing in the least amusing or trivial about a child shooting herself. At least not to most people. Apparently gun owners think it is either trivial or amusing.
What are these stipulations? I asked you three times what your stipulations are, and you refused to answer.
So tell us now, what are these stipulations for “someone properly carrying a concealed firearm”.
It wouldn’t involve them wearing a kilt would it?
Good questions. If I am concerned that the risks of those htings outweigh any benefits why shouldn’t I take steps to minimise them.
You asked the question, now can you give us an answer?
And this is the seventh I’ve said this:
Cite!
Where is your evidence for this claim? What is the risk, and how did you calculate it?
[quote]
If you want to straight-up ban firearms in your house, that’s perfectly fine, after all it’s your house and you’re free to make up all the irrational rules you want. [/qiupte]
Once again I ask; how is it irrational?
This is a debate Brandon. Simply repeating that something is irrational doesn’t make it so. Demonstrate how you know that it is irrational.
Explain to me why I am irrational to worry about my wife being left blinded by a completely unnecessary and completely avoidable risk.
I’m sure we would all love to hear how this is irrational. I suspect it’s connected to the amusement value of a child shooting herself.
Yet when I ask, four or more times, how you calculated the risks involved or why my position is irrational, **all **that you bring to the table is “because I said so”.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t fire bullets Brandon.
And you’re just restating your same, tired, illogical arguments and attempting to paint gun owners as psychotic lunatics. I’m not going to continue to repeat my same, crystal-clear arguments over and over again. I’ve laid them out, you’re the one who continues to grasp at straws and bring up terrible examples of irresponsible gun owners that fall asleep or put guns in purses and forget about them. I’m also still wondering why you keep talking about kilts and other nonsensical things. Oh, and by the way, where’s your cite for attempting to claim that concealed weapons are so risky? The fact is, neither of us have reliable citations to back up our claims.
The fact is this: your position is irrational because it relies on ridiculous situations of kids taking concealed guns from their responsible owner and blowing their brains out. I counter by saying in the real world, the risk is quite small. How small? No one knows, but common sense dictates that not a lot is going to happen in the situation as long as the gun owner follows the most basic of safety rules (you know, like not falling asleep while carrying a loaded gun). I’m not going to waste another second of my life arguing with someone who refuses to read what I write, or understand the point I’m trying to make. It’s an exercise in futility.
Are you the type that feels the need to carry every second of the day, or do you carry when you feel that it’s warranted? I suppose there could be a third contingent as well.
I don’t think you’re literally supposed to shoot the shit.
And yet amazingly you are totally incapable of showing where they are illogical.:rolleyes:
No, I think that when gun owners call children shooting themslevs “silly”, they do a pretty good job of painting themselves.
How about you try it just once. Just answer my quetsiopns and requests for citations once.
Because oyu haven’t done it alll so far. It took me a month of badgering you befre you even acknowledge the questions had been asked.
Why are they terrible?Those examples actually happened. That makes the fairly pertinent, doesn’t it?
Because as myself and several others have noted, your definition of a responsible gun owner is a blatant True Scotsman.
Once again we have Brandon disputing that concealed weapons pose any risk whatsoever. Once again proving why he is incapable of taking reposnibility for jis weapons.
I’ve provided cites that show that people have been injured by concealed weapons. DO you dispute that this has happened. If not then that is my cite. The risk demonstrably does exist.
So you are disputing that concealed firearms pose a non-zero risk? Because that is the only claim I have ever made, and it is wellsuported by cites.
It is you who have built your entire argument about the the magnitude of that risk. It is up to you provide your evidence for that magnitude.
So long as any risk exists at all my position is rock solid.
So once again I ask you: are you disputing my assertion that concealed firearms pose a risk?
Why is that ridiculous? It has happened. We can prove that it has happened.
If you don’t even know what the risk is, then ow the hell can you say that any action to minimise that risk irrational?
If the gun owner falls asleep unintentionally, how is he gong to be able to follow this rule? Or are you contending that nobody has ever fallen asleep unintentionally?
Translation: I have made alot of loud and stupid claims, and in the process I have proved that gun owners refuse to even acknowledge that guns are dangerous.
Whenever I get called on this I say that I’m going to leave the debate to avoid answering questions, but then I come back later to post more baseless rhetoric.
I have a question to the other SDMB gun owners:
Do you actually agree with Brandon?
Do you believe that a child shooting herself is trivial and/or amusing?
Do you believe that you have enough evidence of the risk posed by firearms to dictate what is a rational response to that risk?
Do you believe that you can never, ever fall asleep unintentionally?
Because at this stage,if Brandon is speaking for you, you are proving the point of the most rabid gun control advocates out there. people with these attitudes carrying concealed is terrifying to me, and I’ve been using firearms since I was 12.
Nope. What it relies on is the completely everyday and normal situation of NOT KNOWING whether a particular self-described “responsible” gun carrier IS in fact responsible.
The point is not that the risk of a responsible, conscientious and perpetually alert gun carrier having an accident with his/her weapon is minuscule.
Rather, the point is that the risk of a gun carrier who THINKS s/he’s responsible, conscientious and perpetually alert turning out to be none of the above is, unfortunately, far from minuscule.
There’s nothing at all irrational about not wanting irresponsible or untrustworthy gun owners to bring guns into your house at your social events. Nor is it irrational to refuse to take the word of a guest whom you personally don’t know very well about whether or not they’re responsible and trustworthy with guns.
Yes, that means that highly responsible gun owners whose concealed weapons pose effectively zero risk to their hosts or other guests have to abide by rules designed to protect against irresponsible gun owners. That may be unfair and kind of a pity, but it’s not irrational.
How about we turn down the drama a bit?
Even that smart carry system looks really really
uncomfortable.
A 1911 down the front of your pants? Really? I guess you get used to it, but no thanks. It looks concealed in the posed photos, but I can’t imagine that you would look a bit … um… odd in real life. How would you even sit down?
I understand that there are situations where it may be a good idea to carry. I’m a gun owner myself. But, if I lived in an area where I felt I had to carry at all times, I would look for a different place to live.
I also understand that it’s not that easy to just move. And, like wearing a seat belt to go to the corner store it may be best to have it and not use it, than need it and not have it. I get it. I have a .357 loaded not 50 feet from me.
But, to counter or even DARE to question the request of a host to not carry speaks of a different …… obsession.
Some of the gun folks here really do disservice to the rational gun owning community.
Frankly, I think I’d rather take my chances with being robbed and/or murdered than walk around with a firearm pointed at my goolies.
It’s not pointed at your goodies, it rests over top of them. If you wear one of them and shoot yourself in the junk you’re doing about a hundred things wrong, including wearing the holster around your neck.
Agree there. It just looks very uncomfortable. And hard to get to. I guess it would be OK for walking.
I guess that a small 9mm or .38 would not be too hard to carry in the small of your back. But even that seems way uncomfortable.
I suspect you may have underestimated the reach of my junk. 
So when they say, “Would you mind pointing that elsewhere?”…