To all of the in-your-face tough guy Open Carry zealots who held Starbucks rallies such as the one pictured here, thanks.
Thanks for forcing a major, high profile international corporation into choosing between its image and yours.
Thanks for making such complete idiots of yourselves with your “Look Ma, I’ve got a gun and a coffee at the same time!” antics that what had been a nice political win for our side is now a huge media circus about how Starbucks finally said stop bringing guns into our stores.
You can croon about how you’re educating the public all you want, but it’s bullcrap. And here’s a perfect example. Did you convert the average American? No. But you scared enough soccer moms, kids, and coffee jockeys that Starbucks was forced to take action.
It was you that turned Starbucks into a political battleground. It was you that couldn’t just take the victory of Starbucks saying it would abide by local laws rather than ban guns. It was you who had to push the limits and do things utterly unacceptable among almost any normal community in the United States just so you could brag to your equally moronic Facetwit buddies. You did this. You gave the entire Second Amendment movement a huge black eye. You just educated America, all right, you educated them into believing that gun owners are a bunch of retarded monkeys who’ll throw feces the first chance they get if it’s legalized.
Do you know what would happen if you walked into the NRA Headquarter Range carrying a gun like the guys pictured above? You’d be refused entrance because they don’t allow people to walk around like that. Know what would happen if you, a stranger, walked up to my front door carrying a shotgun like this guy:
At a bare minimum you’d have a gun pointed at your face and police sirens closing in at top speed. Worst case scenario, you’d get shot dead. You know why? Because in suburban America, normal people don’t walk around carrying rifles and shotguns. Period.
Go tattoo your forehead or get your eyeballs pierced if you want to be cool & different & edgy. Stop carrying guns or talking about guns or even thinking about guns. Because you’re idiots, and you’re not helping.
(for a less angry, more in-depth intelligent read on the subject, try Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned)
Train hard & be smart for once in your God-forsaken life! ToddG
original rifles in front of Starbucks photo from NBC affiliate KXAN
shotgun photo from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com (edited to add: per the shotgun-wielding gentleman in the photo above via practicaltacticalpodcast.com via Tam, that particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005 … so no harm no foul, buddy, but thanks for giving me a photo to riff off of)
Killings with 5 or more victims “Mass shootings” are up in both frequency and body count. There are more than enough references for this simple fact.
The results for CC and OC in national polls consistently have 50-53% against each.
Colorado has the same (50+%) polling against OC CC, you won in this election for a number of reasons, none public support.
I would love to discuss the Supreme Court cases. It may be hijacking the thread a bit. These are very solid wins for gun rights advocates, and you should talk them up, however on the public support side, you are loosing ground day-over-day.
TBR — We’ll have to agree to disagree. What I see from polls is a significant upswing in private gun ownership, a shift in private gun ownership from traditional hunting arms to handguns and modern sporting rifles, and in particular a significant uptick in women purchasing firearms explicitly for personal protection.
As I’m sure you know, polls reflect how they’re asked as much as they reflect how they’re answered. I’m sure we could each trot out poll results supporting our respective positions. Luckily, my side has SCOTUS decisions to protect us even if we do become (or have become, from your point of view) a minority group in need of protection.
Also, fwiw, thank you for being civil. Not everyone (from the pro- or anti-gun side) has managed to be so in this discussion.
Anti-Gunners say, “who needs to carry a gun and own an AR-15 just use a shotgun”. The Hunters said, “yeah, you don’t an AR-15 to hunt, get rid of them”. The Concealed Carriers say, “why would anyone open carry they should stop”. The Anti-Gunners sit back and watch it all collapse. Of course there are jackasses in every group, but letting the exception swallow the rule is a mistake. They’ll ban open carry because the conceal carriers will support it, and then they’ll come for the those too. Lowest hanging fruit my friends, lowest hanging fruit. They’re playing chess and we’re playing checkers.
Bill — For. The. Umpteen. Millionth. Time.
None of the pro-RKBA people here have called for outlawing open carry.
Constantly trying to reframe the issue from what it is (the most extreme OCers making us all look bad and pushing a major company away from its previously publicly “pro-gun” looking stance) to something it’s not (we hate OC and wish all OCers were dead!) is a waste of everyone’s time.
I don’t care if you OC or CC. It makes not a whit of difference to me. What I do care about is idiots holding demonstrations with their ARs and AKs that scare enough people that the eventual reaction is a further restriction on our rights. You know, like what just happened at Starbucks.
Even if you want to give those OC Rifle Rally guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they had good intentions in the beginning, how many times can they claim philosophical and political superiority when there is evidence smashing them in their faces proving that the net impact of their actions was negative?
I have yet to meet a single person who’s changed their mind about guns because of someone OCing. I think it’s a positive thing for suburbanites to see OCers. Maybe, just maybe, some of them will be scared at first and then go home and watch the local news and realize “Hey, that guy had this huge, horrible rifle strapped to his back, and magically no one died. How did that happen?”
And frankly, I don’t think the OCers started the poo fight with Starbucks in the middle, I think it was the anti-gunners who kept pushing so the OCers pushed back.
“They started it!” isn’t really the basis for a smart political move. If, as you say, the “OCers pushed back” that doesn’t change the fact that it was their actions that got the attention, their actions that bothered non-gun owning patrons, and their actions that Starbucks put a stop to.
Regardless of who threw the first stone, the over-the-top in-your-face reaction by these particular radical OCers hurt us all. Heck, I might even write a blog post about that!
This is not a failure of the OCers. This is a failure of American culture and the Politically Correct police, the people who are offended by everything.
People need to understand that if I carry a gun, that’s my human right and it doesn’t end at their comfort zone. You still have a right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom of religion outside your home. I mourn this country for not understanding that about firearms.
Lastly, I’d love for Starbucks to disclose what their earnings looked like on the days the anti-gunners tried to boycott them but the gunners all went en masse. They waited till the checks were cashed, then they turned on us. Good riddance.
Hal — If Starbucks was making more money supporting the Mogadishu Wannabes, then why didn’t they come out with statement leaning the other way (“protesters not welcome, AK-wielding coffee addicts are!”).
The free speech analogy is a great one. Starbucks doesn’t owe you a forum for making speeches even though making speeches is legal and protected under the First Amendment. If you wanted to hold an anti-war protest inside Starbucks all over the country they might tell you to cut it out… regardless of how the Board of Directors individually feel about the war.
Thanks for the compliment Todd. Look, living in the echo chamber of our respected groups does nothing for either cause. I read a good article, read the first dozen sane reply, and was taken at how rational the group was. Then… Well, then the OC crowded show, right?
The trend you site, increase in private gun ownership with the intent to defend, is troubling to me. That the poll I site are ONLY at 50+ when I feel they should be much higher, that troubles me. I don’t know that you (RKBA group) should be excited about it. More people with less training and dedication spell additional troubles for you’re sport, and the potential for more mass and accidental shootings.
As for the SCOTUS. You have brushed up with it twice. Let me ask this. What do you think you have won with Heller? Private property (homes, businesses etc.) can still bar armed people. Federal and state buildings enjoy exceptions, and can bar armed people. As in this case, Starbucks said “get out” because of public sentiment. Malls are doing similar things based on the antics of the OC groups. So, my question is, where you going to “carry” these things? When almost all places say “stay out” what then?
TBR — First a few clarifications.
I’m not in this for any sport. In fact, except for some local things I’m directly involved with from an admin side, I don’t compete anymore. My interest in private firearms ownership is almost purely and strictly in terms of personal protection.
Second, every major study — even the CDC’s own information — shows that accidental injuries and deaths from firearms are way down compared to a couple decades ago and the trend is toward further reduction. I’d actually be willing to bet the proliferation of CCW has made a big impact here. People tend to get more and better training for carrying a gun. Also there’s the internet, which has helped spread information and a very pro-safety culture to the masses.
The major victory in Heller was putting to bed the tired (and false) cliche that the Second Amendment was for militias or otherwise encompassed something less than a private, personal, individual right. Between Heller and McDonald the “it’s only for the militia!” argument is dead.
You’re correct, if all the businesses in the country decided to ban firearms on their private property we’d be in trouble. But that’s not happening. Starbucks didn’t even go so far as to say they’re banning. They just “politely request” in a way that most of us (the RKBA side) reads as “we don’t care if you legally carry concealed, but please lay off the scary looking AR15s and AK47s in our shop, ok?”
McDonalds and Duncan Donuts, in response to the Starbucks thing, both publicly stated that they, too, simply adhere to local, state, and federal laws. So they’re not banning us. Neither are any of thousands upon thousands of restaurants and other businesses all over the country that are frequented by people who want to carry. How long do you think a place like Home Depot would last, on a national scale, if it took a stance against gun ownership?
And let me put the question back to you in a different way. Suppose I owned a restaurant that you wanted to patronize. And suppose I put up a sign that said, “No pro-Obama bumper stickers allowed in our parking lot.” Should someone with one of those bumper stickers (a) not eat there, (b) remove his bumper sticker, or (c) eat there anyway and know that no one is really going to call the cops and have him arrested for trespassing over a bumper sticker?
Lawful CCWers make those decisions every day. And it’s more than worth it to exercise our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
Very interesting debate. Amazing how intense it got, for all the wrong reasons.
The bottom line is, now where are our cops going to go get coffee? Will they have to lock their guns up in their cars when going to Starbucks?
Any business has the right to refuse someone from bringing a gun into their establishment, regardless of open carry laws in any states.
Open Carry only applies to public areas. Starbucks is not alone in their restrictions, and many other businesses are feeling the need to put up signs, trying to make their patrons feel safer.
But we have seen what gun free zones has done for the wolves who decide to go hunting sheep….
Not one mass shooting lately was completed at a place that was not a gun free zone. So in my opinion is they are missing the mark and putting their patrons in more danger, because everyone there won’t be armed and not able to fight back.
Todd,
Guns are the third largest cause of death in America now, and account for more than 75k emergency department non-fatal wounds last year. I would be curious where on the CDC you got you’re info, because I cant find it.
The examples you discuss, home depot etc. I think speak to a issue we never seem to come to terms with. Urban vs. Rural. I doubt that there are any CC people in my local Home Depot most of the time, primary because there are few people in urban areas that care to carry. In rural environments the demographics flip-flop. Most people in urban areas are frightened by the site of people walking around with guns, and rural dwellers may be more comfortable with it.
I want to answer your last question, but I have to think about it for a sec. Don’t really have a quick take on it.
So, if someone openly carries a newspaper and a cup of coffee in a Starbucks, would you feel equal levels of rage for them being an in-your-face first amendment tough guy?
Bergman — Nope. Because carrying a newspaper in public is a very normal, everyday thing that isn’t likely to get attention and scare anyone. It’s not likely to force Starbucks to ask people to stop carrying newspapers in their store.
Now if someone came in with a megaphone and started shouting about, then yeah, I’d hope the folks at Starbucks were smart enough to know the guy’s First Amendment rights didn’t force them to put up with that behavior on their private property.
The mere fact that you don’t understand the disconnect between carrying a newspaper in public and carrying an AK47 astounds me and at the same time makes me realize why the OC Jihad crowd is just never, ever going to take responsibility for the trouble it causes.
You have zero respect for other people. You are most likely uneducated, overwieght, and sad.
Me? I’ve got an Ivy League diploma, law degree, and I get to shoot for a living. So you’re wrong on two out of three. 😎
But thank you for that very respectful comment.
@TBR – “Guns are the third largest cause of death in America…”.
Bull.
Using 2010 data from the CDC WISQARS database, the total number of firearms deaths was 31,672 which places it in 13th, not 3rd as you assert.
In order, the leading causes of death in 2010 in the US were:
1. Heart disease, 597,689
2. Malignant neoplasms, 574,743
3. Chronic low respiratory disease, 138,080
4. Cerebrovascular, 129,476
5. Unintentional injury, 120,859
6. Alzheimer’s disease, 83,494
7. Diabetes Mellitus, 69,071
8. Nephritis, 50,476
9. Influenza and pneumonia, 50,097
10. Suicide, 38,364
11. Septicemia, 34,812
12. Liver Disease, 31,903
From CDC I get this list…
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Now, the 3 is cited in a number of articles, however, I cant breakdown down the CDC numbers without some time/effort, but the intentional self-harm, Accidents (unintentional) numbers will include many guns related deaths.
I don’t need hyperboley to make the point. If its not third, you still must concede the number is way to high.
The subject gets to large for the discussion at hand, and will quickly get out of control unless we keep it on track with “carry” laws, and the effect of “open carry”. So, to bring it back around, and to try to answer your question, basically why is your perceived second amendment right less important than my first amendment right. The answer is, these each have to be seen independently. They are not to be weighed next to each other. The limits of speech are reached at some level, just as the right to arms have some logical limit.
TBR,
“The examples you discuss, home depot etc. I think speak to a issue we never seem to come to terms with. Urban vs. Rural. I doubt that there are any CC people in my local Home Depot most of the time, primary because there are few people in urban areas that care to carry. In rural environments the demographics flip-flop. Most people in urban areas are frightened by the site of people walking around with guns, and rural dwellers may be more comfortable with it.”
You’d be surprised: We walk among you.
I live in one of the trendiest intown neighborhoods in Indianapolis, and I run into the servers from my local craft brew bar at the local gun show. (One of the biggest in the nation!)
Heck, I’ve run into the owner of one of the city’s microbreweries at the range where I’m a member.
To follow on what Tam said, I live in a suburb of Washington DC and carry everywhere I go. I spend a lot of time at Johns Hopkins Medical Center and a surprising — to me — number of the doctors, nurses, and techs are gun owners.
TBR — I don’t need hyperboley to make the point. If its not third, you still must concede the number is way to high.
Absolutely it’s too high. So is the number of people who die from medical malpractice. As I pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, more children die in backyard pool accidents than die of accidental gunshot wounds in the United States… should we outlaw backyard pools because of that? Isn’t “one death too many,” then, as well? Guns also SAVE lives, but backyard pools don’t. Backyard pools are nothing but recreation. Is a little fun in the water worth the death of even a single child?!?!?!
No. But while it’s beautiful to pretend a single life is more precious than all the gold in the world, societies naturally operate on a more utilitarian level than that. Millions of people shouldn’t have to give up their pools just because somewhere, sometime, someone is going to have an accident. One hundred MILLION gun owners in the United States shouldn’t lose their right to self defense, protecting their homes, and yes, recreation just because some people are irresponsible. If you start down that route, guns may be first but what comes next? Alcohol. Automobiles. There’s no end in sight.
By the way, seven times more children are killed each year in drunk driving accidents than are killed by firearms. So how about all the anti-gun folks redirect their efforts to tougher laws & enforcement about drunk driving? DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!
More is gained from driving, or I could argue from a swimming pool than gun ownership.
I agree that this endless blather, salacious news stories, is unnecessary. People will die from many causes. I don’t see guns as a net positive for my society, so I would like to see less of them.
That the CC crowd “walks among me” would bother me less if you would be willing to bend on greater background checking and mental health. I have every right to worry about my family in the presence of under-trained, potentially mental ill, and overly casual gun owners in my proximity – just as you push to protect your family through the use of a gun.
There seems to be a disconnect between the idea of a right, its exercise, and the basic rules of a 300m+ democracy all living together.
The fact that a certain right exists isn’t absolute, nor is it granted by the divine or by birthright. That’s not how a democracy works. Thats frankly not how any society or complex group works. Rights are not absolute – they are granted by the majority, and are subject to change. Even constitutional rights can ultimately be changed – even though the process is incredibly arduous. Marching around and saying that you are above the laws of the country because your rights are granted by “birthright” isn’t a legal or legitimate argument. Nobody cares what you think, and I can invent plenty of other reasons why I want to follow certain laws and not others.
There is also a sense that just because you have a right, that gives you and absolute right to exercise it. That is also not correct. Just ask the first guy who yelled fire in a crowded theater. As a massive and incredibly complex country we’ve enacted an enormous amount of laws (some good, many bad) governing how we exercise our rights so that our society doesn’t implode.
Property rights and other rights often contradict each other. The definitions of what is fine in the abstract, on your property or on public property, is VERY different from what is acceptable on private property. The first amendment grants you very broad free speech rights – that can be very curtailed by private property owners. No religious sermons, no politics, etc.etc. I can ask you to leave my establishment for many reasons or no reason at all. Hell, Nevada casinos have managed to make it acceptable to throw patrons out who count well. This isn’t about your rights – its about whether your tactics for broadening their acceptance are gaining you more traction or less. In this case – its less.
I also think the broader point that some folks have been making on the bad-assery of pushing these rights in say….Texas, is a very valid one. Just like gay-pride parades that take place in NYC, San Fran, or Miami – you are preaching to the converted. And your preaching is only providing fodder for activists in places that are far less receptive to continue to curtail your rights. Just like opponents of gay rights have used pictures and images from gay pride events that illustrate utter excess to campaign against bringing that kind of “debauchery” to their locations… folks in many parts of the country that are FAR less receptive to gun rights will use images of people with AR15s and AKs in starbucks to rally and further curtail rights in their jurisdictions.
So yes… you might be right on paper, and in your head. But you are wrong on strategy, and wrong on execution.
“The fact that a certain right exists isn’t absolute, nor is it granted by the divine or by birthright. That’s not how a democracy works.”
The USA isn’t a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
RIght. Except that’s not the practical application. At the time of the writing, all men were not considered equal. Article five is there for a reason, and our rights have been interpreted, abridged, reinterpreted, and contextualized since ratification. A strict interpretation of the words you quote would make for a fundamentally different country – one without drug laws, without most traffic regulations, without most business permits, with little or no regulation of business, and without a history of prohibition, suffrage, slavery, etc. etc.
Insisting we suddenly act and consider this issue through the prism of some unattainable historic utopia is pointless. We aren’t the country this phrase tried to capture. We are some profoundly mutated version of what the founders intended.
TBR, for the record, the “Pro Gun” people are not the problem in the mental health arena. You can thank HIPA laws for that. We want the mentally ill to fail background checks….its up to the doctors to get them in the system. The same with medical marijuana users, other criminal drug users, and “we” would really like to see those who are trying to buy guns illegally prosecuted. We don’t need to expand background checks, the bloated government can’t even get the information into the system we have, and when it does work, they don’t prosecute.
Thanks for the great rant. I loved it. 🙂
While I don’t have a problem with OC, I think there something unsettling about big ass rifles and shit being slung on the back of the person standing behind me to get coffee. It’s a little Mad Maxish. OC is like, wearing your speedos to the beach..while uncomfortable to look at it, it’s tolerable. However, having a two foot gun on you at a coffee shop is like wearing your speedos, with the crotch and ass cut out and an anal plug up your ass. It’s fucking scary to look at and you want to get away from the person as quickly as possible.
I disagree completely: It is my position that CCW is insane and not effective as a deterrent to crime, and that if a person is carrying a firearm, that it MUST be carried openly so as to notify everyone that he or she is armed. This would also notify any criminal intent on perpetrating a crime, that such and such person is armed and would therefore make the armed person the first target of the person intent on committing the crime. I do believe that liberal thinking on this is erroneous and that Concealed Carry should be outlawed completely as it always was in the past, as it deters no one from committing a crime. The reason why CCW was outlawed of course is because criminals always conceal their weapons so as to commit crimes with them. If a criminal walks into the Convenience Store parking lot and sees a guy standing out front smoking a cigarette has a pistol on his hip: he has two choices: move on to greener pastures, or take out the guy with the pistol first. Who has a problem with that?
“YK …if I OC solo usually I am in less populated areas… we preach not to do solo walks in populated areas because of the chance of a attack. … but when solo I carry it in many configurations depending on platform and surroundings. usually on a single point in front or side.”
WOW Paranoid much? Seriously most people do not worry about having a “posse” or worry about traveling alone unless they are going to a KNOWN high crime area.
Its not OC or CC that is at issue here, its the soft skulls and weak minds of some of those that actually do carry who is at issue, which is part of what this post is about.
Paranoia and fear is all I see hear as well as false bravado. At least the author of this story has a head on his shoulders.
Thanks for the article
Concealed Carry should be outlawed, first as it is not a deterrent to anything and any stats purporting it can be fabricated. there is no quantitative value to “crimes prevented”
Open Carry mandatory. Wear it on your hip: be the public’s protection.
CCW is insanity, a bunch of guys who hope they get to pull on somebody and blow them away but what will happen if there are more than one CCW in a place and shooting breaks out: nobody will know who is who and they will be shooting each other, which is fine with me, but …
if everyone is open carry everyone knows who is who.
CCW is idiotic. Does not deter anyone.
and both CC and OC ARE the issue, as CC is idiotic and accomplishes nothing.
Wear it on your hip, so you put the criminals on notice.
Oh, you want to be CC and be Charles Bronson some night and get some punk to mug you so you can blow him away.
only in your dreams you don’t have the guts to do it.
“There’s nothing wrong or illegal with either type of carry as long as the law allows it.”
This is exactly the WRONG kind of thinking and why the pro-gun side has and will continue to have a serious public image problem. The legal standard is a very, very poor guide for how a civilized, decent person should act.
Under the law, if I look out my window and see my neighbor’s child drowning in the pool, it is perfectly legal for me to simply stand there and watch it happen. I have no legal duty to help the child or even to notify someone else of what is happening. I would hope it would be obvious that doing so would still be wrong and horrible.
Unfair or not, if a person wants to be an effective activist on any issue, their behavior on that issue, and any even slightly related issue, needs to be above reproach from anyone. When even people on “your side” are criticizing your behavior, you’ve lost all effectiveness. Who’s “right” no longer matters at that point, because the damage has been done.
Terrie — That would be very wise and brilliant if the RKBA movement was the only one where people disagreed on priorities and magnitude. You’re right, we should take our lead from homogenous movements like environmental activists (they all burn down neighborhoods and want to ban automobiles, right?
there IS something wrong with CCW in that it accomplishes nothing and is counterproductive for reasons stated above.
it should be outlawed and prohibited and people who want to carry, mandated to carry openly.
if those people making the case for CCW is that it deters crime it does not.
and is therefore useless and permits the mentally ill and other miscreants to conceal, bait, and blow away.
If George Zimmerman had been forced to open carry, Travon Martin, if indeed a miscreant, would have been deterred which is the supposed purpose of CCW.
Or if not a miscreant would be alive today because Zimmerman would not have had to confront him, and Travon Martin would certainly not have gotten into an altercation with him, knowing he was packing heat.
but unfortunately ToddG there are no homogenous activist groups organized to ban idiots.
hippydippy — Can you tell me the Mega Millions winning numbers for tonight?
sure 3, 24, 25, 30, 55 and 8 as the Mega Ball.
In an attempt to bring the conversation back to the genesis of the article. The issue is, are protesters working within the sphere of gun rights, who open carry rifles and other more conspicuous guns, in places where these guns are unusual, helping or hurting their cause.
We lack enough empirical evidence at this point, so we can only use anecdotal. The article started with the statement by Starbucks, that’s a great starting point for showing that the effect is not what the protesters intend. Let me try to offer a more personal anecdote. You are attempting to sway ME.
You have all the people you regularly talk with. Your friends, family. You need to expand past those bounds and bring in me. If you think I am unmovable, that may be true, however I have a long list of things I want to change, or dedicate my time to. Gun rights may be one or two on your list of important issues, you should be concerned that it is moving its way UP my list. I may be happy to leave it alone – dedicate my efforts to any number of other issues I care about, but it’s becoming hotter because of things like these open carry groups. Further, as an active participant in politics and my society, my voice joins into the mix that hits the soft middle. You need these people, and while they may never dig deep enough to care about the subtly of your argument, if I start talking about scary – stupid men carrying their AKs into coffee shops, you lose.
Let me hit on one point as an example. Gun rights people like to point to technical details. “This receiver is nothing more than blahblahblah with a modification it blahblahblah” or “this open carry guy is in the ‘ready hike’ position”. People outside your world don’t care, and this sort of technical intimidation turns them off. They see a scary guy with a nasty looking gun. I work in a very technical field. Daily I have to present information to people who are very smart and capable people – just not technical. It is MY responsibility to present my information in a way that is effective for them. I am attempting to influence their thinking, it is MY responsibility to do it in a way acceptable to them, not the other way around.
The issue is the efficacy of law as it pertains to the carrying of firearms, the intent of the law, why the law is what it is, that permits or prohibits the carrying of firearms, by any method, the two options being openly or in a concealed fashion.
It is obvious that people carrying and displaying or brandishing firearms are seeking attention, by creating a scene and this kind of demonstration has little use other than to make people think that these brandishers are mentally unbalanced from the get go, as far as the brandishers are concerned.
The issue is in part, whether or not firearms may be carried and brandished openly, which no law in Ohio, or other states, prohibits per se, but the manner of brandishment may constitute inducing panic or disorderly conduct each case needing to be evaluated on its own merits.
In any particular local jurisdiction, there may be ordinances regarding brandishment, but disorderly conduct or inducing panic charges can be used to suppress brandishment of firearms for the sole purpose of getting media, attention. without getting near to a violation of any constitutional right to keep and bear arms, in my opinion.
no act is criminal in and of itself: it is the state of mind of the actor in each case which determines whether or not someone shooting someone else in the head is guilty of murder or completely innocent on self defense grounds, and the same applies to carrying and brandishing firearms in public places.
for instance, in the image of the guy with his hand on the pump and other hand near the trigger of the shotgun: I would probably either immediately try to fatally strike him in the head with a blunt object from behind or head tackle him and try to break his head on the floor, and let the authorities sort it all out later, but that person is too close to being able to fire that weapon for my liking all other things being equal.
but that is just me.
“hippidippy”,
If you are so unstable as to be driven to attempted homicide that easily, please do us all a favor and stay the heck far away from all firearms.
Well, Tam. That is an issue those on the gun control side are trying to point out.
Not everyone is suited to owning, carrying and using firearms. There should be reasonable controls that allow for us to filter people who are unsuitable out.
In a reply to me up thread someone said the gun rights groups were in agreement restricting guns from the mentally-ill. I see no sign of that gun rights supporters are willing to move on any background check, up to allowing the BLIND to carry guns.
I am sane, can see, have no criminal background, or criminal tendency. I am still not a good candidate for carrying a gun. I have no intention of killing, or hurting, anyone. Given a situation where the gun would come into play, it would be a negative for the situation for ME to have a gun. But, I still could carry, because everyone should be packing, right?
TBR wrote “I am sane, can see, have no criminal background, or criminal tendency. I am still not a good candidate for carrying a gun. I have no intention of killing, or hurting, anyone. Given a situation where the gun would come into play, it would be a negative for the situation for ME to have a gun. But, I still could carry, because everyone should be packing, right?”
No of course not every one should carry a gun,some people like yourself are clearly not suited to it, but THEY should have the right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a gun. You are free to choose for yourself, but each individual should also have that choice. (I’m obviously referring to the class of people you place yourself in = sane and non criminal.)
Elliot,
I should have reworked the last sentence better. I may be able to make it over the bar of acceptance, and have the interest in buying a gun, but not what it really takes in a panicked environment. Many people are not thoughtful enough, experienced enough, or self aware to make the proper determination, that they are NOT a good candidate to carry a gun.
I would really like everyone to review the post I made early today, its more on point with the real topic, however, this slight tangent is int resting too. I am willing to admit that I should not carry, I think the same could be said for many walking around with guns without much real life experience. This leads to unpredictable results. If the bar were higher than “I want one” and “I haven’t been a criminal yet” then society might be more willing to accept citizens carrying guns.
I have purposely left this info out of my posts, but it seems germane at this point. I work with a fair number of people involved in law enforcement and high-end armed private security. To see the level of competence, ESPECIALLY in private security, is to see that real training makes a difference. Its not really about shooting at all.
TBR — First, I (and I think most folks who read this blog regularly) totally respect your personal decision not to own or carry a firearm. If you don’t think you could use one when the moment of truth came, then you’ve made the right decision.
Having said that, there’s a big leap in logic between your personal acknowledgement of your personal feelings or ability and the assumption that there are others out there who are lunatics just waiting for a chance to cause trouble. Given the many millions of Americans who carry every day, statistics are pretty clear that neither accidents nor malicious acts are associated with lawful gun ownership and possession.
There are already many federal and state laws on the books that determine who can and cannot get a firearm. You’ll see our side often chant the mantra “enforce the laws on the books.” But banning concealed carry because it’s easier than enforcing those laws isn’t an answer we’ll accept.
As for the importance of training, look at the name of this blog. Look at the other topics discussed here. I think you’ll find that the typical reader here considers average “private security guard” training to be laughably inadequate. I, too, have a bit of experience with LE/mil/security folks at all levels. And I’m willing to bet I know more about their specific training regimens and policies.
I happen to be a driving enthusiast. Because of that, I’ve become attached to the idea that there should be stricter limits on who can drive and what qualifies someone to operate a vehicle on a public highway. If you’re honest, you’ll agree that statistics clearly show there are more deaths in automobile accidents every year than deaths from gunfire (and thus by definition, more than accidental and/or negligent deaths by firearms). Furthermore — and this is pretty important — there is no Constitutional right to own or drive a car. So as I said earlier, if what you want is to maximize utility and minimize unnecessary injuries and deaths, redirect your effort from the high-profile but statistically uncommon “gun problems” and get your state to institute tougher restrictions on getting a driver’s license. Get your state to make texting while driving a felony. Get your state to make first time DUI convictions serious offenses. Etc.
Guns might be more noticeable and more scary to you (I mean that literally, not as a jab) because you’re less familiar with them than driving. You can understand driving because you do it all the time. Those of us who do the gun thing all the time have a perspective that you lack.
ToddG – Nice response, and serves as a pivot point back to the article, and my post from early today.
First, that I am mucking about in a debate that normally falls further down my list of concerns should indicate to you, and others, that concern around gun laws are more troubling to people now, and I contend that a vocal part subculture in your camp is making more trouble for you than you want.
Second, people that are well trained, conscious gun owners should be MORE concerned with better gun laws, and concerned with the image less conscious gun toting groups. Look, I think we agree that the open carry people are generally giving you a black-eye, but further, I think its reasonable to state that showing such poor judgement, these people are not just bad spokesmen, but a danger to society, and should not be carrying around guns.
The car vs gun debate is always a stock debating point. There is a risk/reward equation in all things, and cars may be more deadly, but have greater reward. My society benefits greatly by the increased mobility provided by cars, but I cant say the same about guns.
Responding to the bit about “training site”. While I haven’t read much of your site, I would be willing to bet there are a fair amount of you that are very serious gun owners. I referenced LEO and a security firm. Let me elaborate a bit on those two points.
The security company is incredibly professional. They don’t have any real worry getting lumped in with the rent a cop world. The LEO people and security people both have issues with citizens carrying guns. Recently they, the security company, had all employees do a week worth of training on dealing with legally armed citizens. The basic feedback was, this is a mess. The last thing these people want to do is get into a situation with unknown people shooting just because they too have a gun.
Wish I could edit. Last sentence was unclear. They, security/LEO, don’t WANT the help of the public during a potentially dangerous situation. Their feeling is, it will complicate the situation, and lead to worse outcomes.
TBR
If I was carrying a weapon and a person presented exactly like this person in the image at top of this article: I would probably shoot to kill him immediately as a prophylactic measure, and let the authorities sort it out later.
better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Hand on pump: finger near trigger.
Dead Man Walking.