Guns and Caffein

Post Reply New Topic

Bold is mine. Referring to the bold statement, that's quite a leap to make, open carry is still relatively uncommon and other chains have barred customers who are doing so from the store. Your statement there also supports that a store that bars armed customers from their premises is making itself a more appealing target for crime, and thus may even be opening the door to a potential legal liability if a customer is injured during the course of a crime. Remember too that people don't turn to crime because it's perceived as harder than legitimately earning money, crooks will always take the easy buck over the hard one, and a store that's posted as "weapon free" definitely looks like the easier buck.

Concealed carry raises the specter in the criminal mind that anybody may be armed, in which case I reject your analysis that this ceases to be a factor and instead contend that it re-balances the risk-reward ratio that leads to criminal decision making. Making a given course of action more likely to lead to the death or serious injury and capture of the person in question naturally discourage that decision from being made in the first place. In order for this to work effectively though, it has to be common knowledge that CCW holders are out there in sufficient number to provide an actual deterrent, so that someone contemplating a violent crime is fully aware that they are rolling the dice with their own life if they go through with it.

Edited to add this link:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Lawy ... rglars.htm

The article is heavily footnoted and describes the deterrent effect that armed homeowners in the US have on burglars compared to other countries, especially the US burglar's avoidance of occupied homes. Though the article is on a pro-gun website, the footnotes are quite thorough and back up the conclusions reached by the author.

You hand-wringers do what you want and be sheep, timidly hoping the wolf passes you by.
I'll keep my Glock .40 discretely tucked away on my person and deal with the wolf head-on if push comes to shove.
I understand it and the wolf understands it so that's really all that matters.

it takes a wolf to deal with a wolf. i would enjoy having your wolf characteristics, but unfortunately i was made as sheep are made, and you just can't remold such into a wolf.

Don't let him/her fool you. Delegating tasks to specialists (in this case, protection to the police and justice system) is a fundamental part of civilisation. So long as you understand and agree with the principle of paying other people (through your taxes or otherwise) to do specialised jobs for you (in this case, deterring criminals), you're doing your bit. You just don't get to fantasise about yourself as a deadly ninja, ready to gun some crims into oblivion at the drop of a coffee cup...

in this respect, many of the noisier americans seem to be resistant in principle, to delegation of personal security. the thing which is bothering me more and more, are that some of the more rabid gun enthusiasts seem to have gone from just defending their right to bear arms, to baldly threatening people who disagree with them on non-firearms-related subjects such as health care reform- i saw those yahoos on the news, with their firearms out in plain view, with the clear intent to intimidate democratic politicians and their constituents who favored reform. IOW lots of these types have forgotten that the gun is an EQUALIZER meant for SELF-DEFENSE ONLY, and NOT merely a bullyboy trump card to intimidate others with.

So riddle me this.

What is the proper role of an armed individual, in a public place (or a place to which the public has access), who is witness to a crime of violence, in which the armed individual does not have a direct interest?

Does the answer differ if:

1) The individual is witness to an armed robbery in a store?
2) The individual is witness to an armed robbery of another individual?
3) The individual is witness to an offence against the person of another individual?
4) The individual is witness to a homicide commited against another individual?

Does the answer differ if there is a peace officer present? If the presence of a peace officer could be secured within a reasonable delay?

Does the answer differ if the assailant is unarmed?

Does the answer differ if the individual witnesses the offence in progress as opposed to the offence being complete?

Does the answer differ if the individual is uncertain about the identity of the assailant?

What is the liability of the individual if he has an honest belief in the identify of the assailant, which proves to be incorrect?

I have no objection to an individual brandishing (or even using, in some circumstances) a firearm to fend off a robber from breaking into the individual's property. But that is a very long way from countenancing a private citizen stepping into the role of a peace officer.

auntblabby wrote;

I’m not a wolf. A wolf is a predator and preys on society’s weak while my interest is simply in NOT being a victim of the wolf. I have a good understanding of the wolf and I don’t deny his existence and potential in society like some obviously do.




Most gun owners in this country aren’t “yahoos”” and actual gun enthusiasts very rarely are.
You Tralfamadorians have a lot to learn.
But yes, there are actually things that warrant an armed revolt. It’s how the United States was became a nation in the first place and it’s a heritage I’m very proud of.



Ambivalence wrote;


I’m a him.
What you’re not seeing here is that not everyone plays by the rules of civilization nor will they ever. They do not go to city hall for a permit to carry out an armed robbery at Starbucks or wherever. They might plan it out (or maybe not) but to most of the patrons it’s going to come as a scary surprise. Even if a 911 call does go out there’s still this thing of response time.

How does the saying go; when seconds count the police are only minutes away?

Read that last sentence again and think about it because that’s how it is in the real world.
And in those rather tense minutes you have some nutjob or two with itchy trigger fingers demanding money while waving firearms around trying to cover everyone.
No thanks!

For me to carry a cop around just isn’t practical. Any one of them are just too heavy for everyday carry and you have to feed them donuts.
As silly as that sounds that’s pretty much what you’re asking those like me to do.

The police exist to maintain order, not to be everyone personal 24/7 bodyguard. There are some things that government entities can’t effectively do for us (actually a lot of things) and personal security is definitely one of them.


Visagrunt wrote;



For an individual to carry a concealed (or open in some states) handgun on their person or even in their vehicle is in no way a license to enforce the law!
It is for personal protection against the threat of death or bodily injury from an assailant. You may protect others from same if the situation warrants it but you really need to have your ducks in a row in a legal sense. The laws vary from state to state but that’s the gist of it.
You have criminal and civil law issues to consider and all of your actions will be scrutinized after you draw and fire rounds off.
It’s a deep subject and your average armed private citizen is well aware of the bindings and they are not taken lightly.

If anyone at any of those rallies had made actual threats, they would have been immediately arrested and now be awaiting prosecution, trust me on this one, in the bad old days despite being legal open carry was subject to so much police harassment that it was de facto infeasible.. Openly displaying a firearm is not a threat in and of itself, but in some places is a legal requirement of permit-less carry and at most can be construed as an advertisement of capability, like wearing a martial arts belt in public. Because guns are involved, the rational thought center of the brain is bypassed in certain individuals and they forget how much scrutiny anyone practicing open carry subjects themselves to, at the very least numerous conversations with the police along their way.

Many of those protests were Tea Party events that attract a whole variety of groups with various bones to pick with Obama and the Democrats including anti-gun control groups who's point in going armed is not to intimidate anyone but to stand out from the crowd and be recognized as a political force to be reckoned with. Within the firearms community there is a strong fear that the Democrat controlled legislature will try to resurrect some of the Clinton era gun control debacles, and attending these protests armed is a not so subtle reminder of the political price they payed in the 1994 mid-terms and the 2000 presidential elections. Remember that the Secret Service had no problem with legally armed protesters when Obama was speaking in Phoenix, and if as paranoid an agency as the USSS doesn't feel threatened, neither should anyone else.

i meant "wolf" in a more noble sense as in the alpha-pack animal secure in its self-defense efficacy and not as a thug. i also am always aware of the predators around me, but when a person brandishes [openly displays] a weapon with an unspoken but palpable menace, that edges uncomfortably close to thuggishness in my view. it would be better if that weapon were out of sight, concealed as it were.



health care reform calls for civil debate and not armed thuggishness. if you don't like the results of the last election [what it all boils down to] then summon more numbers next time at the polls! i was not calling ALL gun enthusiasts thugs, and to suggest otherwise after reading my post sounds like one is trying to provoke an fight with the meek and unwilling. the gun owners who intimidate others who represent no real threat to them, by displaying firepower in a civil public forum, are no different than animals baring their fangs at other creatures competing for food or mates or whatever. it is an atavistic behavior and it has no place in the 21st century. i don't give a damn if you like guns, more power to you- but realize that open display of guns on one's person intimidates unarmed [and rightfully so] folk lower on the pecking order, and if you kept them under your clothing out of sight, that would be a courtesy to the rest of us chickens or sheep or whatever you think of us unarmed masses as being. i believe that concealed weapons permits should be abolished in favor of folk discreetly packing heat under their clothing if they see fit to do so. but let them pay the consequences in full, if they screw up.
____________________________________________________________________
just my 2-cents' worth, adjusted for inflation

The problem here AB, is that you're taking your problem, a fear of holstered firearms, and making it the responsibility of a third party, legitimate open carriers of such. I can only assume that you don't feel similarly threatened by the sidearms carried by police officers, but I'm afraid I have to inform you that they have a higher rate of misuse and public accidental discharges than lawful civilian carriers do. That you choose not to carry yourself is a perfectly legitimate choice, but you should realize that as a citizen of the US you reap a free rider benefit from us gun owners/carriers in the form of a lower rate of home invasion robberies and a reduction in overall rates of violence in states that allow concealed carry. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, people intent on criminal behavior do not call attention to themselves by openly carrying firearms, only lawful citizens do that for reasons as prosaic as hot weather, fashion and comfort. I have a license to carry concealed, but I don't feel that I need to keep my weapon out of site because of other people's misconceptions.

i DON'T fear [for the most part] police with sidearms because that is what society expects of them, to be armed and ready. i DO appreciate brave folk who make things better for the rest of us "free-riders". i DON'T have a fear of holstered sidearms [i'm not THAT silly] but i DO have a fear of the folk carrying them in public [discussion] forums where civility is expected instead of rancor. i DON'T give a damn if you want to pack heat in starbucks, i never go there anyways. if you are CIVIL i wouldn't give a damn if you were schlepping a tommygun. but if i were at a health reform rally and a big bullyboy was in my face screaming threatening things at me while packing heat, please tell me how would that really be any different than if said person were carrying a big club or a machete? if somebody so armed is shouting vehemently at me, how is his gratuitous extra element of coiled menace NOT supposed to make said person extra-intimidating? how is the victim of this bullying supposed to know that the angry armed tyrant really isn't going to reach for his weapon? if the armed rude person at the rally did not mean to overwhelmingly browbeat me into supine apologetic submission, then why be both uncivil and display a weapon? what is so hard about concealing it under your clothes at such a time? being a visibly armed coercer IS overkill and this is not a minor consideration - IOW, have some sensitivity. unarmed toughs are bad enough without any deadly help. my teen years were bullied years so i am sensitive to these things.

We are largely ad idem here, Raptor.

But there is room here for observers to see a lacuna in public policy. The right to bear arms, the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, these are all well and good. But I am not so sure that there is universal agreement on your last sentence.

If it was clearer to me that people exercising their right to bear arms were fully cognizant of the legal framework within which they operated, I would be more comfortable. However, a lot of the political rhetoric appears to me to disconnect the constitutional right, and the legal privilege from the responsibility and the legal framework. If we talked more about the responsibilities of firearms ownership and less about one's, "cold, dead hands," I think we would have a lot more room to find the consensus.

Interestingly, and this story would be a lot more useful if I could remember the book, but I was listening to an audio book that said people sue doctors they don't like, even when they know that they aren't to blame. Bedside manner is the No. 1 predictor of lawsuits, not actual professional skill. So in the real world, "Dr. House" would be the most sued doctor on the planet -- even if he saved their life.

Athenacaput

So true, when I as a clinician I had a patient sue the state to have my license taken away because he didn't like my diagnosis.

I had to hire a lawyer, had my medical records reviewed by a state audit commission, go through a whole interview and question session.

Only to have the state agree that I made a good and proper diagnosis for the well being and safety of the patient.

It was at that point I decided to change careers because I didn't want my livelihood taken away by some a**hole because they didn't like what they were told.

"It’s a deep subject and your average armed private citizen is well aware of the bindings and they are not taken lightly."

I guess I should have used bold letters, italics, and underlined that part of it the first time around but I didn't think it was necessary.
Your average implies that it is not all inclusive but a majority. In the case of this discussion I truly believe is a very generous majority.

Nothing is perfect and I freely admit that we do have a small minority of those legally packing iron that are not of the optimal mindset for it. Now, before we take that and run with it, I'm not saying that they are waiting for any excuse to hose a crowd with gunfire just out of suspicion that one of them is about to commit an armed robbery. They are just not quite as cautious and mindful as the average armed citizen.
Even those are a far better person to have around than someone that will kill you for your wallet or kill you just for sh!ts and giggles.

Fair enough, Raptor, you did, indeed, qualify your statement. Whether your statement applies to a majority, a substantial majority or some other proportion, I am not persuaded that this is enough to give comfort to those who are uncomfortable with a relatively unregulated issue.

After all, we make plenty of law to deal with the exception, rather than the rule. The fact that the "average" person operates their motor vehicle without incident does not stop us from requiring training and licensing. I grant you that driving does not enjoy the constitutional protection that firearms ownership does, but there is still room to make policy better, without intruding excessively on civil liberties.