• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

batgeek said:
i don't frequent stores or restaraunts that have a no weapon policy. 2 reasons: a) i don't like to leave my weapon in my car, and b) i don't wish to give a business with that policy any of my money.
Click to expand...

I'm on the other side of the fence. I'll patronize stores/restaurants that have a no weapon policy because I think it's safer and I'm happy to support a company that shares that philosophy. If the majority of people agree with me, then more businesses will have a no weapons policy as it'll increase business. If the majority of people agree with you, then stores will move to allowing weapons. Regardless of which happens, the other person will just have to deal with it. That's how the market works and that's fine.
 
copestag said:
Im no expert on CCW..... and Im sure it varies by state...... but most language I have seen explicitly states it is a violation of the law to carry anywhere that has specifically informed you its not allowed.....
Click to expand...

I live in KS. I just checked and that's the law here as well. The Attorney General's web site has a very prominent link to a page informing business owners what signage is considered appropriate for banning concealed weapons on their premises. The wording they use is, "In most cases, the posting of an approved sign is required to prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon in public or private buildings. "

Edit: Exact legal verbage here in KS -

Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent:
(1) any public or private employer from restricting or prohibiting by personnel policies persons licensed under this act from carrying a concealed handgun while on the premises of the employer’s business or while engaged in the duties of the person’s employment by the employer, except that no employer may prohibit possession of a handgun in a private means of conveyance, even if parked on the employer’s premises; or
(2) any private business or city, county or political subdivision from restricting or prohibiting persons licensed under this act from carrying a concealed handgun within a building or buildings of such entity, provided that the premises are posted, in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general pursuant to this section, as premises where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited;

So, an employer can't say you can't have a gun in your POV. It can say you can't have a gun in a company vehicle or on the company premises. It also says that private businesses can restrict concealed carry by posting approved signs. The next clause goes over the penalties. Here they are fines for the most part moving up to a class B misdemeanor.

So, there are at least three states (MO, CO and KS) where private property owners are legally allowed to restrict people from carrying concealed in their businesses and you'd be breaking the law by doing so.
 
Yep, same in Nebraska. There is a long list of places you cannot carry, whether a notice is there or not ("places of worship" is the strangest one, that could be a park or open field where a chuch meeting is taking place), along with those that have a sign placed by a citizen or business owner.

We've all seen this response to those signs:

no-guns-allowed.png
 
It is a sorry state of affairs that the pharmacist has the choice of losing his life or losing his job.

Many think that there is a free labor market in this country, I challenge that premise, but just look around where you live, how many choices do you have, Walgreen, Wal-Mart, CVS ?
 
OstrichSaK said:
I promise you that your 'quaint' little town of 350k people has a LOT more violent crime than you're aware of. It happens daily. Trust me.
Click to expand...

Did I call my town "quaint?" :rolleyes:

Did I say "violent crime?" For some reason you left out my qualifier, "serious." A punch in the nose or closing time bar fight is not in my opinion a serious violent crime in a discussion about weapon concealment and "when to shoot."

Firearm crimes, along with other weapons crimes/arrests, are so low here that, again, people are startled when they see it in the paper and on the 6 o'clock news. The need for concealed carry here is practically nil.

Why do I carry? For pretty close to the same reason I keep fire extinguishers both upstairs and downstairs in my house. House fires are rare, too. But have a fire extinguisher and you've got a better chance in the event of that rare dire emergency.
 
IOWA said:
What people fail to realize about guns, is they are tools.
Click to expand...

I agree. Very much I agree, as that is so lost on gunphobes. (lol.. just make that up, maybe the NRA has a better coined word or one they found in the dictionary they apply to people who have an unreasonable fear of firearms ;)).

The thread is about the right to carry ("bear") as that right morphs into the right to shoot when needed. I'm saying that we don't know in this case (yet?), but the confrontation appears to be instigated by the shooter, and that makes me sad for those of us who would never confront at all, let alone to the point of an altercation while armed. I think he messed up big time for all of us.

If it were not bad enough, it has racial overtones that are very hard to shake off. If it were two people of the same race, would it have gotten this far in the media? As a "movement" to second guess cc and "stand your ground" laws?
 
Frisco said:
Did I call my town "quaint?" :rolleyes:

Did I say "violent crime?" For some reason you left out my qualifier, "serious." A punch in the nose or closing time bar fight is not in my opinion a serious violent crime in a discussion about weapon concealment and "when to shoot."

Firearm crimes, along with other weapons crimes/arrests, are so low here that, again, people are startled when they see it in the paper and on the 6 o'clock news. The need for concealed carry here is practically nil.

Why do I carry? For pretty close to the same reason I keep fire extinguishers both upstairs and downstairs in my house. House fires are rare, too. But have a fire extinguisher and you've got a better chance in the event of that rare dire emergency.
Click to expand...

You just love to argue, don't you. You'll just look until you find a reason to 'try and prove me wrong' won't you? I never said you called it quaint specifically. You did infer that it was quaint by the fact that you tried to make it sound like serious crimes didn't happen and it wasn't a large city. This is quaint. Sheesh. Aren't we on the same side of this argument? I also stated that there are FAR more serious crimes than you know about. The ones that make the paper are the ones that the law enforcement weren't able to keep out of the papers which is most of them. Their job is to make you feel safe and that is one major way they go about doing that. If every single serious crime was in the paper there would be wide-spread hysteria and panic. Read the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote and remind yourself this is a true story and where it was. You don't have to live in a major city or a bad area of a major city for bad things to happen. Bad things happen to good people and to gamble with your LIFE on those odds isn't too wise. I'll rest easy knowing the odds are good I'll never need to use my firearm but knowing that in the 1 in a million chance I have to I'll have it. Living in a high fire risk area shouldn't be a qualified to owning a fire extinguisher.

For purposes of this particular story: The shooter effed up. Big time. He was the aggressor regardless of race (people need to drop that already). He gives a bad name to gun owners everywhere. End of story.
 
Nah.. nothing to "argue" about in my response to your response. ;)

It's just that when a key term is left out of a quote, and then a new word is added ("quaint" in this instance) it has the appearance of not understanding my post. Thus the question and clarification.

"You just love to argue," on the other hand, can be seen as a personal remark which distracts from the whole intent of our exchange. And the exchange, as begun by a portion of my post, was supposed to be about the relative need to carry depending on where a person lives: Lincoln, Nebraska as opposed to Detroit, Michigan is quite a leap in that need. ;)

No more personal remarks, please. Let's stick to the subject at hand. :)
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It is a sorry state of affairs that the pharmacist has the choice of losing his life or losing his job.
Click to expand...

You're making an either/or argument and it's just not applicable. The guy can not carry a gun, hand the stores money over to the bad guy and not lose his life or his job. Happens all the time. I live in a county of about 500k people. Armed robberies on businesses, sadly, happen several times a week. It is rare that anyone at all gets killed or injured. The robber is after the money. He's not out to kill someone. The employees hand over the money and/or goods and the robber leaves. The employee keeps their life and their job. Arguing that you have to either offer armed resistance or be killed in a robbery is a ridiculous argument.

OstrichSaK said:
I also stated that there are FAR more serious crimes than you know about. The ones that make the paper are the ones that the law enforcement weren't able to keep out of the papers which is most of them. Their job is to make you feel safe and that is one major way they go about doing that. If every single serious crime was in the paper there would be wide-spread hysteria and panic.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong about this. I do love the conspiracy theory angle though. I spent 5 years working as a 911 dispatcher. I saw crime reports come in first hand. Every single one of them that would be considered "serious" was covered by the media in some way. The idea that police officers across the country are covering up crime reports (which would be illegal in and of itself in most places and highly unethical in all places) so that people will "feel safe" is ridiculous. Also ridiculous that people would be in wide-spread hysteria and panic if this weren't so. Crime stats are public information. The police scanner can be heard by anyone. There is no covering up serious crimes unless you happen to live in an area where the cops are corrupt.
 
A.Nonymous said:
You're making an either/or argument and it's just not applicable. The guy can not carry a gun, hand the stores money over to the bad guy and not lose his life or his job. Happens all the time. I live in a county of about 500k people. Armed robberies on businesses, sadly, happen several times a week. It is rare that anyone at all gets killed or injured. The robber is after the money. He's not out to kill someone. The employees hand over the money and/or goods and the robber leaves. The employee keeps their life and their job. Arguing that you have to either offer armed resistance or be killed in a robbery is a ridiculous argument.



You couldn't be more wrong about this. I do love the conspiracy theory angle though. I spent 5 years working as a 911 dispatcher. I saw crime reports come in first hand. Every single one of them that would be considered "serious" was covered by the media in some way. The idea that police officers across the country are covering up crime reports (which would be illegal in and of itself in most places and highly unethical in all places) so that people will "feel safe" is ridiculous. Also ridiculous that people would be in wide-spread hysteria and panic if this weren't so. Crime stats are public information. The police scanner can be heard by anyone. There is no covering up serious crimes unless you happen to live in an area where the cops are corrupt.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the robber isn't a sociopath. Often times, yeah all they want is the money. But sometimes, they are out to hurt people too, for whatever reason is floating around in their head.
 
IOWA said:
You're assuming the robber isn't a sociopath. Often times, yeah all they want is the money. But sometimes, they are out to hurt people too, for whatever reason is floating around in their head.
Click to expand...

That's an extremely rare circumstance. A sociopath who's out to kill someone just goes out and kills someone usually. They don't rob stores and kill people at the same time. At least not normally. In almost all cases, if you hand over the store's money, you're safe. Shaken up to be sure, but physically safe. You've de-escalated the situation. Any time you pull a gun on someone you escalate the situation. It's rarely, if ever a good idea to escalate a situation. Especially if you have firearms involved.
 
Frisco said:
Nah.. nothing to "argue" about in my response to your response. ;)

It's just that when a key term is left out of a quote, and then a new word is added ("quaint" in this instance) it has the appearance of not understanding my post. Thus the question and clarification.

"You just love to argue," on the other hand, can be seen as a personal remark which distracts from the whole intent of our exchange. And the exchange, as begun by a portion of my post, was supposed to be about the relative need to carry depending on where a person lives: Lincoln, Nebraska as opposed to Detroit, Michigan is quite a leap in that need. ;)

No more personal remarks, please. Let's stick to the subject at hand. :)
Click to expand...

I didn't intentionally leave anything out or inflate anything to prove any point. The same point I was making stands without any of those things you say I changed or left out so i still don't know why you're taking exception with any of that. I didn't make any personal remarks nor did I attack you it was a statement based on the fact that you seemed to pick out two words that didn't mean what you thought they did to have something to get worked up over. Simple observations aren't personal attacks so don't get your panties in a bunch. This is an adult conversation about a topic so let's try to act like adults and not freak out over little inconsequential things.
 
A.Nonymous said:
That's an extremely rare circumstance. A sociopath who's out to kill someone just goes out and kills someone usually. They don't rob stores and kill people at the same time. At least not normally. In almost all cases, if you hand over the store's money, you're safe. Shaken up to be sure, but physically safe. You've de-escalated the situation. Any time you pull a gun on someone you escalate the situation. It's rarely, if ever a good idea to escalate a situation. Especially if you have firearms involved.
Click to expand...

So know you're a master of the intellect of the Sociopath? Well hell, problem solved! We can just use you to pull them all off the street!

...right.

How about some facts instead of speculation?
 
IOWA said:
So know you're a master of the intellect of the Sociopath? Well hell, problem solved! We can just use you to pull them all off the street!

...right.

How about some facts instead of speculation?
Click to expand...

They've actually done studies on criminal behavior by sociopaths. You can look them up if you want.

Or we can just apply some common sense and look at all the anecdotal evidence. None of it points to people being killed in armed robberies by the dozens. Like I said earlier, I live in a county of 500k people. Armed robberies against businesses, people and residences happen all the time unfortunately. The armed robberies on residences can be violent and people get killed or injured. But to be fair, most of them seem to be drug related or the offender knows the victim personally and there's a personal beef there. The robber is out to get person X and that's why they're doing the robbery in the first place. Armed robberies against people are probably the next most likely to see someone hurt because the robber often smacks around their victim to get them to comply if the person doesn't give up the money fast enough. It's rare to see an armed robbery against a business result in anyone getting injured or hurt. There's a counter between the robber and the victim so there's little risk of physical confrontation. There's no personal beef between the robber and the victim. All they want is the company's money. The victim gives it up and all is right with the world again.

Please show me the stats that show that people frequently get killed in armed robberies.
 
SamuraiBigEd said:
Here's a situation where concealed carry and right-to-fire were properly exercised. This happened in my home town and also got national coverage but if you ask most people they never saw the press because it was a positive reinforcement of the 2nd amendment and concealed carry so it was buried deep in newspapers or given a brief comment on the news.

Man shot during Craigslist transaction - San Antonio Express-News
Click to expand...

Definitely a proper exercise of concealed carry. However, it's also likely that if the guy handed over his camera, he'd have been fine albeit cameraless. That's all I'm saying. He kept his camera in this situation and the bad guy wasn't killed. That's the best outcome anyone could hope for. I wonder how often that outcome actually happens though.
 
A.Nonymous said:
You're making an either/or argument and it's just not applicable. The guy can not carry a gun, hand the stores money over to the bad guy and not lose his life or his job. Happens all the time. ...
Click to expand...

In this particular robbery, the robber attempted to shoot the pharmacist first. So if said pharmacist didn't have a weapon, he would be just another statistic.

Armed assailants have an incentive to kill, i.e., leave no witness. Happens all the time.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
In this particular robbery, the robber attempted to shoot the pharmacist first. So if said pharmacist didn't have a weapon, he would be just another statistic.

Armed assailants have an incentive to kill, i.e., leave no witness. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Anoynmous is out of touch about what really happens in bad situations. Too many times I see in the media that a gas station attendent is gunned down because he didn't fork over the cash fast enough.
 
IOWA said:
Exactly. Anoynmous is out of touch about what really happens in bad situations. Too many times I see in the media that a gas station attendent is gunned down because he didn't fork over the cash fast enough.
Click to expand...

I spent 5 years at 911. Only once or twice did I see someone killed during an armed robbery. And we had robberies a couple of times a week.
 
Yes, again it's about the area. But what is it about the area? I grew up in an L.A. suburb about 20 miles from downtown L.A. Nothing happened in the town where I lived. But in the L.A. Times and sometimes in the local paper were daily reports of violent crime occurring in the big city up the road.

Believe me, the "demographics" had nothing to do with it. Robberies and murder, rape etc had no income level or color. As I look back it seemed to have something to do with living in more crowded conditions, because the only difference between L.A. and the suburbs was the noise, the size of the buildings and how close together everything seemed and how many people there were (are) there together.

It seemed so distant to us, but some of it was scarey looking, as I'd read about a woman being raped and strangled, some man shooting his neighbor then himself, a kidnapping/murder, etc.

Also, I began to see that those crimes all had one thing in common: the police could not protect the victims.
 
Frisco said:
Also, I began to see that those crimes all had one thing in common: the police could not protect the victims.
Click to expand...

The fallacy most anti-gun people live by is that if there were no guns the streets would be safe because only the cops would have them and they would protect everyone from the fewer criminals out there. There is SO much wrong with that line of thinking that I don't even know where to begin. For starters if you outlaw all guns tomorrow you just take them out of the hand of law abiding citizens and nothing more. It's an unfortunate burden they put on cops (who are normal human beings) that they're supposed to prevent harm coming to anyone. They simply can't be everywhere all the time and most that I know (I know quite a few) would MUCH rather show up to a shootout than a massacre.
 
OstrichSaK said:
The fallacy most anti-gun people live by is that if there were no guns the streets would be safe because only the cops would have them and they would protect everyone from the fewer criminals out there. There is SO much wrong with that line of thinking that I don't even know where to begin. For starters if you outlaw all guns tomorrow you just take them out of the hand of law abiding citizens and nothing more. It's an unfortunate burden they put on cops (who are normal human beings) that they're supposed to prevent harm coming to anyone. They simply can't be everywhere all the time and most that I know (I know quite a few) would MUCH rather show up to a shootout than a massacre.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people really need to look up the definition of the word criminal.

crim
Click to expand...
 
OstrichSaK said:
The fallacy most anti-gun people live by is that if there were no guns the streets would be safe because only the cops would have them and they would protect everyone from the fewer criminals out there. There is SO much wrong with that line of thinking that I don't even know where to begin. For starters if you outlaw all guns tomorrow you just take them out of the hand of law abiding citizens and nothing more. It's an unfortunate burden they put on cops (who are normal human beings) that they're supposed to prevent harm coming to anyone. They simply can't be everywhere all the time and most that I know (I know quite a few) would MUCH rather show up to a shootout than a massacre.
Click to expand...

It works well enough in Europe, although I can see it failing herrendously in the US. Heck the only guns police have in my state are locked in the boots of 5 or 6 cars that swan around the cities. People still get robbed, and hardened criminals *do* shoot each other in gangland murders. But civilians very rarely get shot at, nevermind killed. People can still get guns if they try - some EU states have relatively liberal gun laws, and obviously farmers and hunters can aqquire them (and they can be transferred state to state even if its not quite legal: link). Generally automatic weapons are banned, but they can be aqquired.

TL;DR, In Europe only Police and criminals tend to have guns on them, but ordianry folks dont. Civilians dont get shot in robberies or assualts by and large. Not saying that would work in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom