Gun Control Debate

[Dave_LF]

Nice to see you, SF.

[Lalaith]

I don't actually have a point. Unless it is maybe that discussing issues of gun ownership with people who've never shot a weapon adds another layer of complication to an already complicated situation.

I think that is a very good point, Frelga. When a person who has never been around guns thinks about guns, I imagine that he or she simply cannot fathom the why of gun ownership (theoretically, maybe, but not experientially). And the converse is true. The people who have been around guns don't get why the others think they shouldn't have them. I know Freddy grew up with guns; his dad was a police officer, ran the range at their house for the police department, and operated a gun sales business (legally). Freddy and his dad and brothers all hunted. They could wander off into their backyard to hunt or to shoot on the range. I didn't quite grow up with that exposure to guns, but my dad is now really into them for target shooting. My girls have grown up with guns via exposure from Freddy and my dad.

We have found that some people we know who are terrified of guns often ask for help with those fears and want to have a safe, gradual introduction to them. I don't know. I like to shoot, but I still don't love guns. And I'm still afraid of them. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Túrin Turambar]

It is difficult to have two or three hundred years of foresight when writing these things...

You don't need centuries of foresight - we can amend the constitution.

... and no-one can change that ....

Except that.....we can amend the constitution.


Sorry, but for some reason people often talk about the constitution like if we can't change it. I don't understand why that is but it's pretty annoying....

True, although amending the American constitution is so difficult that nothing less than a near-consensus will work. And if something is covered in the federal constitution then different states cannot adopt different approaches - SCOTUS decisions apply nation-wide in the same way.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm curious about this point. For example, the Oregon constitution defines free speech more broadly than the U.S. Constitution, and some speech that would be criminal most places is protected (obscene phone calls are the example I'm familiar with). Is it just that this sort of determination is left to the states?

[Túrin Turambar]

I'll let Voronwë answer that, but my post was on the assumption that something is covered in the federal constitution but not also in the constitution of a state (or not differently in the constitution of a state).

[yovargas]

True, although amending the American constitution is so difficult that nothing less than a near-consensus will work.

Sure, but that's because it took near-consensus to get it in there in the first place. And we've managed to amend it a bunch of times anyway.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm curious about this point. For example, the Oregon constitution defines free speech more broadly than the U.S. Constitution, and some speech that would be criminal most places is protected (obscene phone calls are the example I'm familiar with). Is it just that this sort of determination is left to the states?

The U.S. constitution provides a base line of protections but states can provide a higher level of protection if they wish (so long as it does not conflict with some other provision of the federal constitution).

[Maria]

I don't actually have a point. Unless it is maybe that discussing issues of gun ownership with people who've never shot a weapon adds another layer of complication to an already complicated situation.

I think that is a very good point, Frelga. When a person who has never been around guns thinks about guns, I imagine that he or she simply cannot fathom the why of gun ownership (theoretically, maybe, but not experientially). And the converse is true. The people who have been around guns don't get why the others think they shouldn't have them. I know Freddy grew up with guns; his dad was a police officer, ran the range at their house for the police department, and operated a gun sales business (legally). Freddy and his dad and brothers all hunted. They could wander off into their backyard to hunt or to shoot on the range. I didn't quite grow up with that exposure to guns, but my dad is now really into them for target shooting. My girls have grown up with guns via exposure from Freddy and my dad.

We have found that some people we know who are terrified of guns often ask for help with those fears and want to have a safe, gradual introduction to them. I don't know. I like to shoot, but I still don't love guns. And I'm still afraid of them. I don't think that's a bad thing.

There's one way in which I'm in the middle on this. I've been around guns of various sorts all my life, but I never shot any until I started taking ROTC classes in college. I joined the target shooting club in college and after a couple of years was elected the president of it (after I became a cadet, I mean.) I shoot well. I think the more people are familiar with firearms, the more respect they'll have for them and less of a freak out reaction.

With one exception: My husband got a concealed carry permit a couple of years ago, and it utterly freaked me out when I'd hug him and feel a holster on him. I raised such a fuss he never carries it anymore, unless it is to a distinctly *iffy* situation, like a craigslist purchase where cash is specified. And he always tells me first.

That's where my firearm fear is defined. A concealed weapon that I might accidentally discharge with careless fingers. That is just unacceptable to me. If he's wearing that gun, I don't touch his torso. It's that simple. After decades of roaming hands, having to limit myself like that is rather traumatic. So, I really don't like it if he's wearing that gun. Honestly, I'd prefer an Old West style open holster. Or carrying it openly in his hand. Not lurking under his clothes where my hands might run into it accidentally.

[Impenitent]

I recently read an interesting response to open carry activism, and I'm curious to know how Lali and Maria feel about it (as you are the only two people in this thread who own and use guns, as far as I know).

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5826

Philosophy Professor Jack Russell Weinstein suggests: "My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.
But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay."

He argues that if you are in fear of your life, you don't stop to pay the bill - but only if you are genuinely in fear of your life, as you would be if there was a fire alarm, or a bomb threat, for example. The foundation of his argument is that the person carrying the gun is unknown to you so you cannot tell character, state of mind or intention, and you are therefore justified in assuming the worst case scenario.

[Lalaith]

I'm not sure how I feel about all of that. The people I know who have concealed carry permits are not criminals and are not mentally unstable. Would these be the same people who carried openly if it was permitted? If so, then I wouldn't freak out if someone was carrying a gun. (I don't do so now, but I am around a lot of cops. So I am completely comfortable seeing and being around concealed and open firearms.)

Now, of course, if open carry were allowed, I would not know everyone who had a gun; that would make me nervous, yes. I also don't like the atmosphere created in a public place with people walking around with guns. (A gathering where there are a lot of cops is different than, say, grocery shopping or going to the mall.) Not knowing the people with guns, it is reasonable to question their motives. I'd leave. Or pull out my own gun (if I had a CCW permit, which I do not). The latter scenario then becomes quite problematic, don't you think?

I think this guy's idea could work.

[Primula Baggins]

I already decided that if I were in a business and someone openly carrying walked in, I would abandon my cart and leave. Like Lali, I do not trust the motivations of even legal open carry people--a fair number of recent massacres have been carried out by people whose weapons were legally acquired. I'm not betting my life on their good intentions. And in general I won't patronize any business that tolerates open carry. Not ever.

[Jude]

Do businesses in states that allow open carry have the ability to not tolerate it? What do they do if they have a sign requesting people not bring guns in, and some activist makes a point of flouting it? What options does the business have?

[Dave_LF]

Logically, since the gun crowd is supposed to be all about individual freedoms, it should support the right of businesses to decree that no firearms will be allowed on their private property. And many express exactly that opinion. But the loudest opinions come from those who think their right to pack heat trumps all else (what good is it having a gun, after all, if you still have to listen to other peoples' rules?)

This isn't quite the same thing since it's public property, but there's been a lot of noise around here lately from ordinary citizens who are up in arms (and lawsuits) over a public school trying to stop them from open-carrying on the premises. It makes my head go wooga-wooga that this is even a hypothetical question, let alone an actual controversy.

[Lalaith]

Do businesses in states that allow open carry have the ability to not tolerate it? What do they do if they have a sign requesting people not bring guns in, and some activist makes a point of flouting it? What options does the business have?

I think Ohio is technically an open carry state, but I do seem to recall that police can cite a person for carrying in a place that would induce public alarm and panic. (To my mind, that is pretty much anywhere unless you're out in a field or the woods hunting or at a shooting range.) You have to have a concealed carry permit to have a firearm within your access in a car. Most public places and businesses have signs prohibiting firearms, and I think that's legally binding. That often applies to Freddy, too, as a police officer. Occasionally, we'll see a sign that says that LEOs are permitted but need to check in with security. We encountered that at the Reds stadium recently.

It looks like Michigan's laws are similar, Dave. I would think the Ohio law allowing for police to cite open carriers for disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace should apply for carrying on school property.

[Dave_LF]

I'm not familiar with the legal details, but it's an ongoing battle, so there must be at least some wiggle room. The most recent developments (that I see) were a ruling from a judge on September 15 saying the school was allowed to ban guns if it wanted to, and an appeal filed by the activists in October claiming that this conflicts with a 2012 ruling saying that public libraries cannot ban open carry.

And Donald Trump referencing the case in a speech about why we need more guns in schools.

Local news reports about the story are collated here:
http://topics.mlive.com/tag/gun-ann-arbor-school/

Edit: Looks like the debate is actually about concealed carry. Personally, I'd be way more worried about a person I noticed carrying a concealed weapon than one who had one in an open holster. In order from most to least worrisome would be: In the hand, concealed, openly in a holster.

Edit again: Ok, it's actually about both types.

[Frelga]

Weapon in the hand would not be worrisome, it would be me running for the nearest cover or exit.

[Cerin]

Philosophy Professor Jack Russell Weinstein suggests: "My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.
But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay."

He argues that if you are in fear of your life, you don't stop to pay the bill - but only if you are genuinely in fear of your life, as you would be if there was a fire alarm, or a bomb threat, for example. The foundation of his argument is that the person carrying the gun is unknown to you so you cannot tell character, state of mind or intention, and you are therefore justified in assuming the worst case scenario.

This is what I have imagined doing if I found myself in such a situation -- along with explaining to a store employee on the way out, why I felt the need to leave.

[Maria]

I recently read an interesting response to open carry activism, and I'm curious to know how Lali and Maria feel about it (as you are the only two people in this thread who own and use guns, as far as I know).

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5826

I didn't know open carry activism was a *thing*.... but I don't see how someone wearing a gun openly is any more dangerous than someone with a concealed one. That article just shows how hysterical some people are about guns. If they see one, it's automatically considered a life threatening situation? Ridiculous. Every person you see on the street could be carrying a concealed gun. They make purses designed for concealed carry. (Which really annoys me when I'm looking through Ebay for a leather purse and see one I really like the look of .... and the description tells me there's a concealed carry compartment in it! I don't need that! It just jacks up the price of the purse! )

I don't think about concealed carry on other people. It only bothers me when I encounter a concealed weapon on my husband's body! I guess I'm less paranoid than I used to think I was, but I assume that other people who choose to wear a firearm (concealed or otherwise) will be well trained in its use and only use it if necessary. I don't walk through a crowd worrying about if every third person is carrying a concealed weapon or not, just like I don't worry that one in twenty might be a martial arts person who could kill me with her bare hands.

The world is full of dangers. My husband and I are trained to cope with many, but I would like to point out that neither of us has EVER been in a real fight of any kind. (Childhood sibling fights excluded, of course!) Part of that is lifestyle choice, of course, but some of it is attitude. People don't mess with us. And that comes from martial arts training, not gun ownership.

One of our judo club black belts is a small guy with a distinct Japanese accent. Once he was chased down in his vehicle by a big guy having an attack of road rage. The redneck stomped up to the black belt's car window and yelled at him to get out of the car- obviously wanting a fight. Completely calm, the judo guy says, "You don't want me to get out of this car" and stared him down. The redneck had a sudden shift of attitude and left without further incident.

To win without fighting is the very best way.
If more people understood that, the world would be a better place.

[Frelga]

Completely calm, the judo guy says, "You don't want me to get out of this car" and stared him down. The redneck had a sudden shift of attitude and left without further incident.

Maria, did you mean "judo" or "jedi"?

I would assume that anyone with a need to carry a gun in a civilian situation is NOT trained and highly dangerous. This is because the mindset of using a gun for self-defense is so different from a sportsman or a hunter. It's not "lock up in a safe with ammo separate from the weapon", it's "keep a loaded weapon on hand at all times and be prepared to draw and kill a person in a blink". It goes against everything I've been taught about safe gun handling. Unless it's someone who had a LOT of training, I don't want to be anywhere near them.

And I have to wonder, why? I was twenty years old and living a few blocks from San Francisco's more questionable neighborhoods, and commuting to equally questionable Oakland locations, and never once felt that my life would be improved if I had a gun.

A middle case would be of keeping a gun in a safe location in the house where one can barricade themselves in case of a home invasion. That I can see, if it were for example an abused woman, but even then I would definitely hope that she got some training.

[Dave_LF]

It takes a heck of a lot more training (and discipline) to achieve deadly proficiency with a martial art than it does with a firearm, which gives it something of a built-in safeguard against abuse. I can't say I've ever heard of a martial artist panicking and accidentally snapping an innocent bystander's neck.