That’s the idea.
That’s the problem.
Frankly, I’m in favor of the kind of reasonably strong handgun rights we currently have in PA, but like you said, long-term attitude change is going to require an image change in terms of what carrying a handgun signifies, and who knows how to accomplish that?
Here
Because some people find something threatening is not a reason. There are people who find large men with beards threatening. Should we prevent them from appearing in public because they make someone uncomfortable?
Next we can get all the kids with piercings and spiky hair.
For me, no. I would choose not to be around those people, regardless of who they were or how they were behaving.
Similar to Malthus, I grew up in the country and was around guns a lot, though mostly shotguns and the like. I didn’t like guns even then. (I did shoot a few times, but decided pretty soon that I didn’t want to do so anymore)
So feeling threatened by someone walking around with a gun is exactly as reasonable as feeling threatened by a guy with a beard? Come on, this is not a good analogy. I don’t know how I feel about the issue in general but only one of the two can be used as a deadly weapon- although I’ve seen some ugly beards in my time.
If you aren’t allowed to take one to school, wouldn’t a kids soccer game be a similar circumstance? Was the field at a school?
With the way some parents get worked up over their kids sports, if I were there and some parent was packing heat, I’d put my kid in the van and go home.
It’s pretty much a perfect analogy as both are equally reasonable. Both are based on preconceived prejudices which are more based on hearsay, tv, and pre-formed opinions than any real data.
The person open carrying a gun where they are legally entitled is no more likely to pull it out and shoot you than the guy with the beard is going to drag you off into an alley and mug you.
That you might perceive otherwise is your problem and not the person carrying. It’s just far easier to object to him carrying than to educate yourself and overcome your unsubstantiated fears.
You and your are referencing those who have that fear and not you personally of course.
Well, not quite AnyTown, PA. To carry a pistol even unconcealed in the city of Philadelphia requires a concealed carry license. I believe this is either a state law, or a grandfathered municipal code (I could check, but I’m lazy. :p), since Pennsylvania has complete state preemption of firearms laws, meaning localities are not permitted to enact restrictions beyond those imposed by state law.
The question is the appropriate-ness of carrying such a thing around.
An axe is a perfectly legitimate tool, and no-one would have problems with a lumberjack or a carpenter carrying these things to and from the job. But it would seem odd to say the least to see a parent show up to a kid’s soccer game carrying a large, sharp axe - even though there is nothing illegal about axes, and as far as I’m aware no TV shows exploit axe-carrying as a plot point.
This argument seems to be repeated in so many places on this board, in other places and publications, and with so many iterations… which makes me loathe to respond to it. I’m just barking up the same tree, but oh well.
Do you really, truly see this as a good analogy as your second posts seems to reiterate? A man, born that way through no choice of his own, who given his biological impreatives must at some point travel within the presence of others given today’s societal structuring, is exactly the same as a person willingly choosing to carry a device designed to shoot high speed projectiles? Is it the presence of the beard perhaps that makes the analogy so apt? If so how can this be used as effectively as a gun to kill people? If not how is the gun furthering every day life for the person packing heat willingly as going out in public is for the dude with the beard?
The point is, that someone walking around with a gun should be no more noteworthy than a person with a cell phone on their belt.
But some people find guns scary. Big deal. Some people find kids with piercings and spiked hair scary. Let’s send the kids home to take off their jewelry and get a conventional haircut.
A person legally in posession of a gun on the street is no more dangerous than a person legally in posession of a cell phone. And far less of a threat than a person legally in control of an automobile.
The “but it’s scary” argument has never carried any weight and never will. But it’s the argument that seems to be repeated in so many places on this board, in other places and publications, and with so many iterations…
What’s your standard for “should be” here?
Again, this is a non-comparison. You’re comparing matters of taste to matters of safety, and it doesn’t bolster your case.
That’s a better comparison. Then again, if the woman was driving her car around the soccer field during the game, she would’ve been arrested and probably denied use of the car because that’s dangerous.
Then why can’t you carry a gun or a knife on an airplane?
So do you agree with the Sheriff’s actions?
No, I’m merely saying that carrying a hand gun openly and legally where it is legal to do so would not if you like make me feel better or safer about openly carrying guns.
That being said, the fact situation in this article seems wierd in the extreme to me, all sides. Why is this woman so concerned about a concealed carry permit if she wants to carry her gun openly? How can openly carrying a gun where permitted by law be grounds to remove a permit on the basis of ‘bad character’? How on earth could having a concealed-carry permit revoked lead to a loss of one’s wifes’ “companionship, consortium, society and services” ?
Sounds like everyone involved is over-reacting in bad ways.
Gonna have to ask the same question Marley asked. Why should a gun be less scary to people than a gun? Do you really think these two items are equal in significance? If so why?
I’ll bet that if we look up some statistics that the rate of fatalities caused by cellular assault in any nation worldwide that those figures would be far less than the fatalities caused by assault with a firearm. Do you think that this is because of a worldwide practice of safe cellular ownership, or do you think it is because firearms are more dangerous than a gun?
To expound upon your automobile argument, which is much better, how does the gun equally contribute directly in the functioning of society as the automobile does? I understand that it is useful for the threat of force for policing actions, but why do ordinary citizens need to rely on it daily as they would a car to get around?
Pretty much as it appeared in the post. If it were to be commented upon, the conversation would be along the lined of, “Hey! Is that the new (iPhone/Glock)? What do you think of it? Is it really as good as they say it is?” In other words, it’s just an accessory.
Where is the matter of safety? A person responsibly carrying a weapon does not meet any defination of unsafe.
And if she had been waving her gun around at practice we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the sheriff would have been justified in confiscating it and revoking her permit. Though I don’t believe her weapon was ever removed from her, the sheriff revoked her permit at a later date.
Out of scope for this discussion, but I’ll address it anyway.
Because people have been known to board planes with the intention of hijacking them for various purposes. Planes are controlled access areas where all people boarding can be screened. I can still have my gun in checked luggage to have available at my destination. But with the possible exception of an air marshall, it’s reasonable to expect that there are no other weapons on board so the field is still level if an event occurs where violence is necessary.
This debate is wandering a bit so let me restate my views and points I’m making here.
The woman was legally open carrying at a children’s soccer game. I would personally have chosen to conceal in that venue, but that’s irrelevent. There was no legal reason for her not to be able to.
The sheriff revoked her concealed carry permit because it had made other people uncomfortable. He is legally permitted to do so and even required to in some circumstances. But not for the reasons given. She had to take legal action to get this situation corrected.
A gun is a deadly weapon and I have never stated otherwise. What I have said is that someone being uncomfortable around one in public is their own problem and that the person carrying shouldn’t have to alter their behavior to accomodate them. We don’t require large bearded men or kids with unconventional grooming habit to change their habits, so why single out individuals exercising their legal right to carry?
A person responsibly carrying is not dangerous to anyone. Carrying at a ball game does not come close to the definition of irresponsible.
The arguments I have been countering are that people shouldn’t carry because guns are scary and make people uncomfortable. My response is that guns aren’t scary and shouldn’t be any more worthy of notice that a cell phone. They must be handled responsibly and never taken for granted, but there is no need for all the reactions here and histrionics elsewhere when the subject arises.
I was composing my previous response as you were posting this so I’ll answer as best I have time to.
:dubious:
But to answer the question you were trying to ask, let’s flip that. Why should a legally carried gun be scarier than a cell phone? It’s a tool that I choose to carry and have available if the need ever arises. Obviously I’ll be thrilled if that need never arises, but no one can guarantee me that it never will.
Let’s keep this in scope. Legally carried firearms. No statistics, how bout some cites?
Jurors Convict Missouri Man Accused of Shoving Cell Phone Down Woman’s Throat
Naomi Campbell Charged with Assault
Foxy Brown charged with cell-phone assault
Yes, these are tongue-in-cheek examples. I’ve no doubt that a search would reveal isolated examples of legally held weapons used in criminal acts. But like the cell phones, those are the rare exceptions to the rule. And because they are rare, they are news.
Going to have to pick this one up later. Work calls
Ok. That’s just your say-so, then.
A gun’s a weapon, a phone or a beard isn’t. It’s that simple: it’s more or less impossible to create a major safety issue with a beard, so people generally don’t treat it as a serious issue. While safe gun owners aren’t dangerous, you don’t know from looking if somebody is a responsible gun owner or just an idiot packing heat, and the consequences are different. Somebody with a cell phone or an iPod may turn into a rude jerk, but can’t do much more than inconvenience you.
Part of what makes an iPhone an accessory is the fact that it’s a harmless item used for fun. A gun’s an item used for protection that’s potentially dangerous. You might like people to treat it as just another accessory, but it’s reasonable that they don’t.
True. And I admit this is a bit of a stretch because the purpose and cars and guns is so different. However, the fact that cars are dangerous is one reason you can only use them certain places.
I don’t think it’s out of the scope of the discussion at all. The point is that “but it’s scary” does carry some weight: “it’s scary,” in this case, because “it’s dangerous.”
I agree. My first reaction here is to wonder why the heck she was carrying at the game, but she was not breaking any laws, which makes the sheriff’s actions unreasonable.
With that, I think this thread belongs in Great Debates, so I’m sending it over there.
I miss the days when people were meant to use their own judgment about people. Back when carrying weapons was common we judged people on an individual basis, and people didn’t automatically freak out at the sight of a gun.
We’ve become a culture of pansies who want every corner rounded, and for their to be a big strong authority figure to make decisions for them.
Alternatively, maybe the “pansies” used their own judgment and thought, “Why the hell is this woman carrying a gun at a soccer game for five-year-olds?” What experience the people at the game had with guns, if any, is an unknown, so we don’t know anybody automatically did anything.