[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

violence in the media · Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:34 pm

I'm curious as to what percentage of people with conceal carry permits actually carry a weapon on them all the time? If I'm out in public somewhere and I spot a firearm on someone that isn't obviously a LEO, my first thought is NOT, "oh, a law-abiding citizen enjoying their second amendment rights." But rather, "what lunatic brings a gun to the mall?"

For the people that do carry all the time, is the hassle actually worth it? There are places you still aren't allowed to bring your weapon, even with a permit, right? So where are you going and what are you doing that the cost/benefit analysis informs you that having a gun on you is beneficial to your safety? Wouldn't it be easier to just stop cruizing for drugs and hookers? If it's protection from random horrific occurences, are you the eternally vigilant sentinel of every social gathering you attend? You never do a round of shots with your friends?

Lastly, if the weapon is for self-defense or use as a deterrent, why conceal it? Given the emphasis on defending YOURSELF or YOUR FAMILY, I'd find it hard to believe some sort of altruistic claim to herd immunity against violence. "No criminals will attack us in this Piggly Wiggly because one of us might secretly have a gun!" Wouldn't it make more sense to avoid the conflict entirely/pass it on to someone else by advertising the weapon? In the grand scheme of self-defense, avoiding the conflict entirely is in all ways better than winning the conflict you get into. Right?

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:46 pm

Police in European countries don't carry guns. It works out fine.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:57 pm

Europeans don't have a 2nd amendment guaranteeing them MOAR GUNZ!

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:27 pm

violence in the media wrote:
Lastly, if the weapon is for self-defense or use as a deterrent, why conceal it? Given the emphasis on defending YOURSELF or YOUR FAMILY, I'd find it hard to believe some sort of altruistic claim to herd immunity against violence. "No criminals will attack us in this Piggly Wiggly because one of us might secretly have a gun!" Wouldn't it make more sense to avoid the conflict entirely/pass it on to someone else by advertising the weapon? In the grand scheme of self-defense, avoiding the conflict entirely is in all ways better than winning the conflict you get into. Right?

Well, less use of ammunition, less wear-and-tear on guns, less chance of injury or lawsuit because of accidental discharge or poor aim.

Sure, it does work out to be superior.

JigokuBosatsu · Post by **JigokuBosatsu** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:32 pm

I first thought about this idea when I was teenager, after reading this:

Hunter Thompson's sheriff platform wrote:The whole notion of disarming the police is to lower the level of violence while guaranteeing, at the same time, a terrible punishment to anyone stupid enough to attempt violence on an un-armed cop.

As I became an adult, it started to make more sense. There's a strip mall/marketplace area right next to where I work, and the Starbucks there is the "donut shop." So at any given time when I go to get gas, pick my wife up, or get groceries, there are half a dozen cops hanging around. This has never made me feel safe. There is something really terrifying about the idea that the guy who pulls me over for a broken taillight has the potential to shoot me dead for no good reason and not suffer any consequences.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:18 pm

Australians can own firearms. State legislation varies, but the firearms you are allowed to own have to have an express purpose and cater to those purposes almost exclusively. So farmers are allowed to own semi automatic rifles and limited capacity pump action shotguns, for example, with strict regulations in place governing storage and acceptable use.

There is some flexibility with antiques and gun collectors, but not much. Weapons designed for battlefield use are typically rendered inoperable if you are allowed to keep them.

Since firearm regulations were tightened, the number of firearm related deaths have dropped significantly, but the overall number of homicides has not drastically decreased. Those statistics don't really prove much though, as suicides would probably have been counted amongst firearm related deaths. On the plus side, suicide rates in Australia have steadily been on decline since gun regulation (probably no direct correlation, though 1985-2000, 78% of Australian suicides were by firearm, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Other crimes related to firearms have also been reported to have decreased, notably the theft of firearms and the use of stolen firearms in other crimes. Again this does not prove much of anything.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:30 pm

Vaguely related, but there's federal action being taken to ban those magnetic bucky ball office toys from being sold anywhere in the States. It seems a bit extreme...

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:43 pm

Googling found me [url=http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1232207--buckyballs-magnetic-toys-banned-in-u-s-after-children-hurt wrote:this[/url] {OK}]Since 2009, the [Consumer Product Safety Commission] says, at least a dozen children have swallowed the magnets. Some required surgery.

At what point should the government care/stop caring? Tripling this number is still an average of less than ten children a year. Is it the government's job to reduce the number to zero? Can that actually be done?

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:49 pm

Winnah wrote:Since firearm regulations were tightened, the number of firearm related deaths have dropped significantly, but the overall number of homicides has not drastically decreased. Those statistics don't really prove much though, as suicides would probably have been counted amongst firearm related deaths.

I don't know about Australia, but suicides are definitely counted among gun-related deaths in Canada. I wrote a paper about Canada's long gun registry last year, and the RCMP included suicides in its total number of gun deaths whenever they could in their reports. While the number of gun-related deaths dropped while the registry was in force, the overwhelming majority of them were suicides and the suicide rate was unaffected.

The big problem we have in Canada isn't that our gun laws aren't restrictive enough, it's that we can't keep illegal weapons out of the country. Almost all violent crimes involving guns are committed with handguns, and almost nobody can own a handgun legally.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:11 pm

violence in the media wrote:I'm curious as to what percentage of people with conceal carry permits actually carry a weapon on them all the time? If I'm out in public somewhere and I spot a firearm on someone that isn't obviously a LEO, my first thought is NOT, "oh, a law-abiding citizen enjoying their second amendment rights." But rather, "what lunatic brings a gun to the mall?"

For the people that do carry all the time, is the hassle actually worth it? There are places you still aren't allowed to bring your weapon, even with a permit, right? So where are you going and what are you doing that the cost/benefit analysis informs you that having a gun on you is beneficial to your safety? Wouldn't it be easier to just stop cruizing for drugs and hookers? If it's protection from random horrific occurences, are you the eternally vigilant sentinel of every social gathering you attend? You never do a round of shots with your friends?

Lastly, if the weapon is for self-defense or use as a deterrent, why conceal it? Given the emphasis on defending YOURSELF or YOUR FAMILY, I'd find it hard to believe some sort of altruistic claim to herd immunity against violence. "No criminals will attack us in this Piggly Wiggly because one of us might secretly have a gun!" Wouldn't it make more sense to avoid the conflict entirely/pass it on to someone else by advertising the weapon? In the grand scheme of self-defense, avoiding the conflict entirely is in all ways better than winning the conflict you get into. Right?

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the answers to some of your questions are due to laws.

Here in PA, you need a license for concealed carry. Open carry is de facto legal, everywhere save for Philadelphia - where you need a license to carry a firearm. But the only license the state issues is for concealed carry. So if you are law-abiding and want to carry a gun in Philadelphia, you have a concealed carry license - even if you are carrying your gun openly. Furthermore, openly carrying a handgun *will* attract attention from law enforcement, many of whom view open carry negatively.

As to places you can't take your gun into, those vary drastically from state to state. My understanding (again not a lawyer) of PA law is that it's illegal to carry a gun into a courtroom, an airport and the federal building. Supposedly it is technically legal to carry a gun at a public school, but the authorities will try really hard to find or fabricate some other technicality over which to revoke your license if you do that in urban areas. Bear in mind that carrying a handgun in easy reach of children can get you charged with Reckless Endangerment, Creating a Public Nuisance, Disturbing the Peace and similar charges - even if you would eventually win a 2nd amendment argument against such charges when the case goes to court.

Thus if I were to decide that I wanted to carry a handgun, I would get a concealed carry permit - and then since I prefer not to attract hostile police attention I would carry my weapon in a concealed manner. So long as I didn't fly anywhere, didn't have court appearances, didn't have business in the federal building and wasn't picking kids up at school I wouldn't have to worry about the legality of where I carried a gun.

Furthermore, there are a number of states which have reciprocity agreements over firearms regulation with PA, so if I were licensed in PA, I could carry a concealed firearm in a similar manner in those states.

I realize none of that addresses the risk/benefit questions or how often people with concealed carry permits do carry, but it does at least address your questions about why people would concealed carry instead of open carry and about how difficult it is to follow laws while carrying in my home state, and presumably states with reciprocity agreements.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:51 pm

I will admit total mental bias when it comes to [white] people carrying guns. I've seen a few carrying in public and my immediate thought is Well, there's someone who lives their life in constant fear. I can't even imagine what it must be like to think so lowly of your fellow human beings that you feel obligated to carry a weapon in case shit goes down. That's a level of paranoia and stress that I want as far away from me as possible. I'll just stick with "people are assholes."

K · Post by K » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:50 pm

Considering the number of people I've seen who have lost their shit in public, I'm very glad that none of them were carrying firearms.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:49 am

Red_Rob wrote: Do the Australians lay awake at night in case their government suddenly marches troops into their homes?

Maybe if they're abos.

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:24 am

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:Yeah, npc310's total failure to respond to DSMatticus puts him on the ignore list.

I've been away for a few days, sorry. What am I supposed to respond to?

There's lots going on here. I tried gracefully bringing this to a close with an "agree to disagree" post, but it did not work. Let's bring this back to the event that brought all this up. 70 people were shot. 14 of them died. 9 are still in critical condition. (I've been unable to get any news for a day, so my numbers might be old.) How is this the preferred situation? Why do you want us to be defenseless when there are vicious nutjobs out there? Would things have been different if, like a previous poster said, 37% of the people in the theatre had guns? I think it would have. The dude surrendered to the police without a shot being fired! Clearly he's a chickenshit. If a few bullets thunk off his body armor, I bet he folds.

Ever notice how many of these gun massacres occur in gun-free zones? Columbine. Virginia Tech. This movie theatre. The list could go on and on.

Some of you have had experiences with burglaries or police that turned out just fine. So you're willing to turn over your safety and that of your family, and trust the good nature of the guy who's coming to rob you. My experience in this regard is not positive. The bad guys could be coming back. I hope more than anything that they don't and that I am never tested. I hope I never have to shoot anyone. The idea terrifies me. What terrifies me more is being unable to protect my family.

So go on quoting statistics if it helps you sleep at night. If it helps you feel better to think you are doing the responsible thing by not bringing a dangerous weapon into your home, then hide behind the police. I am taking responsibility for my family's safety, and I am being safe about it. I feel it is my duty to do so. Many of you disagree. I don't know how else to say it. Let's agree that we disagree and move on with our lives.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:29 am

npc310, you are adorable in the most pathetic way.

"Well keep on using facts if it makes you feel better, but my assertions are right! They feel good!"

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:35 am

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:52 am

npc310 wrote:"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I'm posting this, and then I'm leaving your trollfest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn ... statistics

Read the second sentence. Bazinga.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:17 am

No. I'm done. Npc310 is literally the worst conservative we have ever had I have ever seen here. The last post is an open and unhidden rejection of the pursuit of knowledge through observable facts, and the post before that is nothing but political marketing buzzwords to hide behind. There is no thought there. I can't ignore him enough.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:16 pm

npc310 wrote:"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Yeah, I was going to respond to the post above until I read this. If you're going to carry on regardless of empirical evidence, then I don't see the point.

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:50 pm

DSMatticus wrote:I can't ignore him enough.

I thought you already were ignoring me? Try again.

RobbyPants wrote:If you're going to carry on regardless of empirical evidence, then I don't see the point.

I know you don't. 70 people got shot last week in an act of indescribable madness. How many of them said, "My chances of being involved in an act of gun violence are ridiculously low, so I'm not going to protect myself.". Those are statistics. Your empirical evidence (which I haven't had time to verify) tells a story which is contrary to my personal experience. Your evidence says I should not be afraid of the bad guys because the cops will respond in minutes. My experience tells me something different. Your other argument is that I am wrong to keep and bear arms because all I gotta do is yell boo! and the bad guys will go running for the hills. Well, you bet your ass I am going to try it. But if that doesn't work, I'm not going to stand idly by and watch them hurt my family.

How many people get struck by lightning, live to tell about it, and then go run around in a storm the next day because the odds of getting struck twice are ridiculously low? Statistics tells them they are safe, but I bet nobody faults them for staying under cover.

I know you don't understand. I've tried to bow out gracefully twice. I've tried to agree to disagree. You are the ones who keep bringing this up, and now you're starting to insult me. This makes me the troll?

K · Post by K » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:23 pm

npc310 wrote: I know you don't. 70 people got shot last week in an act of indescribable madness. How many of them said, "My chances of being involved in an act of gun violence are ridiculously low, so I'm not going to protect myself.". Those are statistics. Your empirical evidence (which I haven't had time to verify) tells a story which is contrary to my personal experience. Your evidence says I should not be afraid of the bad guys because the cops will respond in minutes. My experience tells me something different. Your other argument is that I am wrong to keep and bear arms because all I gotta do is yell boo! and the bad guys will go running for the hills. Well, you bet your ass I am going to try it. But if that doesn't work, I'm not going to stand idly by and watch them hurt my family.

It's impossible to take you seriously when your experience actually doesn't tell you differently. You haven't even seen a criminal, much less been on the receiving end of violence.

You're just a coward, the kind who is going to shoot his own kid when they sneak in late some night.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so goddamn tragic.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:37 pm

And if even 7 people in that movie theater had pulled guns, the death toll would be well over 30, and the wounded would be even higher.

Do you know what happens when a bunch of civilians who don' know each other all pull guns in the middle of a dark, noisy, SMOKE filled room with a bunch of terrified people screaming and running around?

Well, they panic, they shoot the wrong people. Then someone sees them shoot someone, and so takes a shot at them, and accidentally hits the person running behind them. Then you've got the original gunman, in body armor, shooting at people indiscriminately, and you've got your 'good Samaritan' shooters who are shooting at each other, because they have no fucking clue what's going on, and they think the other 6 guys with guns are in on it with the gunman. Or hell, they never saw the gunman, all they heard was shooting, "he's got a gun" and a guy with a gun 4 rows down in front of them, shooting in some direction where there's people falling.

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:53 pm

K wrote:You're just a coward, the kind who is going to shoot his own kid when they sneak in late some night.

No, I wouldn't. That is a hurtful, hateful, horrible thing to say. You think I'm a crazy, right-wing, "readyfireaim" whackjob. You show the source of your ignorance when you refuse to see someone else's perspective, and sympathize with their feelings. Instead you lob insults like a monkey with feces. YOU are the coward, hiding in your closet praying the cops arrive in time to save you. I hope that never happens to you. I would pray for your safety if I believed in that sort of thing. You would probably pray for my destruction (and my family's) just to validate your skewed perspective.

Maybe you live in an area where crime is a daily routine part of life. Someone else described burglary with nobody home as an annoyance. This strikes me as complete kaka. I cannot begin to describe how much garbage you are spewing. That is my home, where my wife sleeps and my children play with their toys. In my opinion, you are irresponsible if you do not protect your family.

In my part of the world, crime hasn't been something I've worried about until recent years. I'd like to move further north and west to a better side of town, and I'm working toward that goal. It just isn't quite possible for me yet. In the mean time, I'm not going to allow myself or my family to be hapless victims.

Gun-free zones invite violence from evil and disturbed individuals. This is a demonstrable fact. I've already cited three examples from recent history, and I'm confident I can find plenty more without much trouble. My home will not be one of those places.

That is all. I've made my point to the best of my ability, but many of you are so shackled to your anti-Constitution, anti-American, anti-gun theology that you refuse to see. I'm done with this. You all can have the last word.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:53 pm

npc310 wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:If you're going to carry on regardless of empirical evidence, then I don't see the point.
I know you don't. 70 people got shot last week in an act of indescribable madness. How many of them said, "My chances of being involved in an act of gun violence are ridiculously low, so I'm not going to protect myself.". Those are statistics. Your empirical evidence (which I haven't had time to verify) tells a story which is contrary to my personal experience. Your evidence says I should not be afraid of the bad guys because the cops will respond in minutes. My experience tells me something different. Your other argument is that I am wrong to keep and bear arms because all I gotta do is yell boo! and the bad guys will go running for the hills. Well, you bet your ass I am going to try it. But if that doesn't work, I'm not going to stand idly by and watch them hurt my family.

How many people get struck by lightning, live to tell about it, and then go run around in a storm the next day because the odds of getting struck twice are ridiculously low? Statistics tells them they are safe, but I bet nobody faults them for staying under cover.

I know you don't understand. I've tried to bow out gracefully twice. I've tried to agree to disagree. You are the ones who keep bringing this up, and now you're starting to insult me. This makes me the troll?

You're point is basically that stats say one thing, but personal experience might say something different. I've had this argument with my cousin way too many times. Lets put it this way:

You and I are going to play a game. We're each going to roll a die. If someone rolls lower, they pay the other guy a dollar. No payout on a tie. We will roll for a minimum of one thousand rolls. The catch, of course, is that one die is a d6 and one is a d10. Which do you choose, and why?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:05 pm

npc wrote:Gun-free zones invite violence from evil and disturbed individuals. This is a demonstrable fact. I've already cited three examples from recent history, and I'm confident I can find plenty more without much trouble. My home will not be one of those places.

Huh?

You haven't demonstrated anything. All you've done is cite three situations where kooks attacked people. The fact that they were or were not in gun free zones doesn't mean shit. Hell, the very week that the guy shot up a movie opening (which obviously wasn't in a gun free zone because he got through the front door and into the theater with a bunch of guns), a guy in Bulgaria suicide bombed a tour bus at an airport and killed seven people. Airports aren't gun free zones, they are crawling with armed guards.

The only actual statistics that matter are whether having a gun in your house makes your family safer or not. It doesn't. It makes your family less safe. It makes your family less safe because houses that have guns in them get broken into by criminals more often, and it makes your family less safe because the chances of accidentally shooting family members is considerably higher than your chances of stopping a crime in progress, and it makes your family less safe because domestic arguments are much more likely to turn deadly in a house with a firearm than in one without. These are all facts.

This is like taking steps to avoid stepping on nails by cutting your feet off. Guns in the house make your family less safe. Period.

Now as it happens, I've been jumped by thugs several times. Several years of Aikido really worked out for me in a way that wandering around with a loaded firearm would not have. If you want to play the anecdote game - I win that too.

-Username17