Perception is all: sacrificing safety to give in to fear
I’ve often wondered why people would want gun-free zones. I’m not a big gun lover, but logic tells me that gun-free zones are uniquely vulnerable and a signal to criminals or mass murderers that the people within them have become sitting ducks.
Why would a person planning a mass murder respect a store’s request that he not bring a gun into the store? That would be a bizarre notion.
So why are so many stores giving in and establishing themselves as gun-free zones? Well, it turns out it’s not about safety at all. It’s about making people feel comfortable:
There’s nothing more important than the safety of our customers & employees. The sight of someone with a gun can be alarming, and we don’t want anyone to feel that way at Wegmans. For this reason, we prefer that customers not openly carry firearms into our stores.
— Wegmans Food Markets (@Wegmans) September 5, 2019
Banning open carry isn’t too bad if people still have the option of concealed carry. But often they don’t—at least, if they obey the rules.
For example:
CVS Health Updates Firearms in Stores Policy pic.twitter.com/0ODx6ewJNX
— CVS Health (@CVSHealth) September 5, 2019
I don’t know about you, but if anything such a policy would make me more frightened to go into a CVS, not less.
‘feel’ says Wegman’s.
They don’t actually say you are safer but as long as you ‘feel’ safer then all is well.
I am more comfortable on Sunday mornings knowing that my friend, a qualified and experienced concealed carry permit holder, is armed as we pray. I would prefer that concealed carry permit holders be in the grocery store or anywhere else I shop. They’re not going to shoot me; some crazy person may try to.
We don’t have CVS here to boycott, but the difference between “banning” and “requesting” is a legal one, and the difference between forbidding open carry or concealed is a practical one.
See a spate of articles at Bearing Arms which actually sympathizes with the stores (although not all the way; they still recommend shunning any sign-posting gun-free zones as much as possible).
They take this position, they say at BA, because of the jerks who have parading around with their rifles just because they can, instead of carrying an openly, but discretely, holstered handgun.
The latter is prudent protection; the former is grand-standing.
On the right as well as the left, jerks are why we can’t have nice things.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/09/05/walgreens-joins-chorus-companies-open-carry/
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/09/04/kroger-joins-walmart-asking-customers-not-open-carry/
Tanks, AesopFan. The sight of some idiot parading around a store with a rifle slung over the shoulder would be unnerving. As they say, a hand gun in a holster at the waist is much more appropriate — or a concealed hand gun.
I add to my Sunday worship comment that it would be prudent, given the rising incidence of Jew-hating in the country, for synagogues to be quietly recruiting members who are trained and agree to carry concealed handguns at services and other gatherings. Although assaults on the Orthodox are most common, I wouldn’t count on the Jew-haters’ distinguishing among Orthodox, Conservative, or Reformed congregations.
Police are minutes away when seconds count. Virtue signaling can have deadly consequences. “An armed society is a polite society.”
I don’t find the Walmart or Wegman’s policy to be a problem, and although the CVS policy is more obnoxious it is at least a request.
I don’t ever carry, but some of those who do cite examples where it is extremely difficult to comply with dozens of gun free stores and zones in their community. And when complying they must leave the firearm in their auto. So auto safes are a common thing. (Too bad the Fed. officer who’s gun killed Kate Steinle didn’t use one.) My guess is that at least half of the concealed carry people would not honor the CVS request.
The history of the U.S. is that open carry was legal most everywhere, but small concealed handguns were considered a mark of an assassin in many places.
Nowadays, a gun concealed under a shirt, inside a waistband holster isn’t any kind of threat as long as it stays there. With a visible gun some yahoo could make a grab for it, or possibly the owner could decide to fiddle with it leading to a negligent discharge.
_____
I go to a number of free outdoor musical events in our area. One was put on by an outdoor style shopping mall and they jammed about 150 people into a small area. While there were at least 4 different directions one could use to flee, the several mall cops were armed only with walkie talkies. No armed presence?? That scared me a little.
Another bigger event blocked off several streets for foot traffic only and hosted 5 or so performing stages. This one had half a dozen armed cops including one with a slung AR-15. Thank you sirs!
Martha McCallum was on her FOX show, “the Story,” last night, talking about the proposals for “assault rifle” bans and “gun buy backs” as a way to stop mass shootings, and I thought that she was very rude to her guest, there to give his ideas for other ways to deal with mass shootings.
In her fervor to find an immediate “solution” she talked over him, pushed him to immediately produce a “solution” and, then, never actually gave him a chance to fully explain his ideas.
Her felt “urgency” to find a “solution” to this problem was perhaps her largest and first mistake.
She is so horrified and “concerned” over these mass shootings that she wants a “quick fix,” an immediate solution, yet, if you actually look at this phenomenon, it will soon be apparent that there is no such instant and universally effective solution available.
This a a complex problem with many contributing factors, and solutions will also have many different parts, of necessity tackling different aspects of the phenomenon.
First off, should be the recognition that such mass shootings—horrible as they are, and the casualties from them—are a very small percentage of the total number of shootings that take place, everyday, all over the country, and that the majority of shootings occur in big city ghettos—see Chicago, with both shooter and victim being black or Hispanic, much more than white.
Somehow, these countless deaths don’t seem to matter that much to the TV pundits, experts, and the Commentariat, and are not talked about anywhere near as much as the far fewer casualties from mass shootings.
A real focus on and reduction in Black and Hispanic crime would therefore be one of the things that could produce a dramatic and likely large reduction in the total number of gun deaths.
Her search for a “quick fix” also deliberately ignores the key fact that it is the shooter and his state of mind that is the primary and first key thing that has to be changed here, and not the gun—the weapon– he uses.
For, given intent, if it was not a gun, it would be a knife, if not a knife a baseball bat, a poison, a chemical, or a truck, a fire, a rock, or anything else that could be–with evil intent–turned into a weapon.
But those moral, social, and cultural factors, of course, require a lot of soul searching, and are much harder things to “fix,” so she goes for the quick fix of banning the instrument.
It has been commented on that, in past generations–particularly in the country where there are wild animals and people hunt–guns were much more prevalent, a part of daily life, just a tool, and you would often see high school teenager’s pickups in school parking lots with gun racks with rifles in them.
Yet, back then, with all those rifles in teenager’s hands, mass shootings were practically unheard of.
Why?
The truth is that it is our current day culture that is creating more and more of these mass shooters–it is the ideas, images, actions, and examples that are today—far more than they were in past decades, and far more in terms of number, viciousness, bloodshed, and impact–allowed to be presented in video games, in movies, on TV, and the Internet—which are the ideas, images, actions, and examples which create for such shooters the drivers that motivate and direct them, and culture is far harder to change than confiscating a gun.
Then, there are the other major issues/motivators in this phenomenon of mental health, drug addiction, and the isolation and unchecked anger, rage, and violence that new social media like Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media promote.
Also to be considered is the waning influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs in our schools and in our culture, and the restraining value systems and behaviors that they used to teach and expect that are now pretty much gone, leaving a moral/ethical vacuum which has been filled by our culture.
All of these things have to be tackled and”fixed” before any reduction—not elimination, because that is just not possible—of such mass shootings would be possible.
Guns?
Frequently just ignored in these debates about bans and buybacks is the obvious truth that those who would illegally buy, steal, and use guns care not one whit for laws, rules, and procedures, which these confiscations, and bans, would force on the law abiding, not effecting the lawless potential shooters in any way, but reducing the capacity of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and our Republic; would be shooters will find a way to buy an illegal gun or to steal a gun, which can be easily done.
Then, there is the issue of “gun free zones,” which invite such attacks by proclaiming themselves as defenseless, and soft targets. You do notice that these mass shooter attacks do tend to be made against such gun free zones as schools, churches, bars, businesses, and shopping centers, don’t you?
Such gun free zones should be eliminated and, as many people as possible should be encouraged to buy, train with, and to conceal or open carry a weapon, as a deterrent to such attacks by making potential shooters pay a heavy price if they attack places where they could themselves be shot in self defense with, as a bonus, a good chance of deterring, immediately stopping, or cutting short such attacks and, thus, reducing the number of casualties in any incident.
Moreover, there should be an armed and trained security guard at every school and every public venue in this country—many already trained ex police and military could fulfill this function.
Of these all, the hardest thing to do, changing the culture–the world-views it encourages, and its messages and examples promoting conflict and violence–would, I think, have the greatest chance of reducing such mass shootings.
Second most in impact would be better mental health and drug addiction efforts and, where necessary, interventions, involuntary commitment, and hospitalization.
Finally, as with the Left’s push for massive, in effect total government control over our lives, our economy, and our wealth to combat the supposed “Existential Threat” of “climate change,” this push for gun control is also merely the Left presenting us with yet another ginned up “Existential Threat/Emergency,” and a set of “solutions” that are an excuse for a massive transfer of power and control to the Left, all at the expense of each citizen, and our Republic.
As someone quipped after these virtue signalling announcements, these businesses–and especially Walmart–have bowed to pressure from people who would probably never set foot in their stores, to the detriment of their actual customers.
It seems to me that by instituting this policy these businesses have deliberately made their customers less safe in their respective stores.
Our society is a very litigious one and, given this, I wonder what sort of suit someone who might someday be the victim of a shooting at one of these businesses–which have declared that they want no legally carried guns to be carried into their stores–might be able to bring, on the theory that–by these prohibitions–these businesses have increased the chances of such an attack happening and, moreover, deliberately banned the potential for help from someone lawfully carrying a weapon.
I wonder whether there isn’t an element of hard headed self-interest at play? How long till a surviving victim of a mass shooting in a NON gun free zone sues… and wins? Would it really be a surprise if a liberal/leftist judge finds in favor of such a suit through today’s not uncommon convoluted thinking?
The tobacco industry comes to mind… in 1964, I read the Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States in which they concluded that the evidence did not support the assertion that cigarette smoking caused cancer but did conclude that if one had a susceptibility to lung cancer, smoking increased the likelihood of falling prey to it.
I was a smoker and had no idea whether I had a susceptibility or not… but I stopped smoking shortly thereafter, figuring if not then, when?
The majority of people who have sued the tobacco industry had the same opportunity to avail themselves of that information and to then act on it… how is it the tobacco industry’s fault that they did not?
People unfamiliar with the lawful and responsible use of guns are ignorant and irrational on the topic of possession.
Kate on September 7, 2019 at 4:56 pm said:
I add to my Sunday worship comment that it would be prudent, given the rising incidence of Jew-hating in the country, for synagogues to be quietly recruiting members who are trained and agree to carry concealed handguns at services and other gatherings. Although assaults on the Orthodox are most common, I wouldn’t count on the Jew-haters’ distinguishing among Orthodox, Conservative, or Reformed congregations.
* * *
I suspect there are far more armed congregants in all churches these days, and know there are in ours. Some are official, some are wink-and-nod.
knowing that my friend, a qualified and experienced concealed carry permit holder, is armed
That’s the key. The Founders assumed that people would, in the course of their daily routine, acquire and develop the skills and knowledge to properly exercise their civil right and duty. I believe the NRA promotes education and training. I would supplement it with a good legal course: Andrew Branca: Law of Self Defense.
People unfamiliar with the lawful and responsible use of guns are ignorant and irrational on the topic of possession.
Yes, the right to keep and bear arms… legs, a head, and life… I digress, is a human right, a civil right, an asset, a liability, and responsibility.
Gun controllers believe that the presence of a gun makes people more violent. They believe that people who carry guns for self-defense, or even use them for sport, are deeply related to those who use guns to commit crimes. They believe if our society could just have “less of all of that” we would all be safer.
We can speculate on why they believe these things, but the main point is to recognise that they do believe them, even though there is no evidence for these things. Their reactions are feeling-based: get those bad things out of here and I will be safer. More deeply, if you don’t want to do that for them, then that proves you are more dangerous than average, because what kind of antisocial bastard would value his “rights” more than their safety?
My impression is that perhaps no set of statistics is more manipulated in our political debates than those on gun deaths.
Here’s an interesting article with some comparative statistics on the number of gun deaths vs. numbers of other types of causes of death at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/06/18-daily-causes-death-americans/
General:
I’m not a psychiatrist/psychologist nor do I play one on TV, but I’ve had a few who are comment on my piece about gun control… with positive feedback.
http://redpilljew.blogspot.com/2018/06/gun-control-as-psycho-pathology.html
@Kate:
You may like my piece about Jews and guns… and how I always CCW when I’m at Shul. Please see the above link; at the end is a link to that.
I wonder if CVS et Al would then take responsibility for the safety of its customers from criminals with guns.
They won’t, of course. I have never seen, nor heard of, an establishment that said “we want your business, not your guns. Therefore we are providing, free of charge, a place to safely store your firearm while you shop with us. Our ubiquitous armed guards will keep you safe in our store; go back to protecting yourself when you leave”.
It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it?
You know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see a grass-roots counterpart to Moms Demanding Gun Safety et al… simply an organization that promotes people telling their stories of how guns worked in their favor.
The NRA promotes stories like this that appear in the press… those being stories that are easy to verify. But a great many crimes are averted, I hear, when a criminal walks away after learning that a potential target was armed. No police report, no news story, and hence no statistics. That’s why estimates of such incidents range all over the map, from 90,000 per year (the Brady estimate) to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of annual uses.
I imagine many people with such experience would not self-identify… but many would.
“Although assaults on the Orthodox are most common, I wouldn’t count on the Jew-haters’ distinguishing among Orthodox, Conservative, or Reformed congregations.”
while you’ll find many ortho congregations with guns, the others are central casting for gun opposition, and desire to hug their killers
its also been my experience that those most opposed to guns are the least likely to fight back
As a person who works in CVS stores nationwide, I keep my firearm in my truck because CVS has a rule about representatives of CVS not carrying firearms in their stores. I have on a few occasions, had my concealed weapon on me in the store, but getting caught with it would probably mean my job.
With some notable exceptions, if a shoplifter gets to the door with product, employees are instructed to let them go. It’s actually become pretty much a nationwide epidemic in corporate America that they won’t confront and prosecute shoplifters because of litigation where the lawbreaker was hurt by the store personel during detainment and the criminal was awarded damages.
Here’s why you might need one of those nasty AR-15s.
See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/horrific-61-year-old-homeowner-kills-2-of-4-armed-home-intruders-with-ar-15-one-was-wearing-jason-mask-video/
MIKE G points to the HUGE change in liability & responsibility:
they won’t confront and prosecute shoplifters because of litigation where the lawbreaker was hurt by the store personnel during detainment and the criminal was awarded damages.
We could use a law limiting liability to those attempting to detain criminals so that those hurt while trying to steal can NOT win settlements for good faith defense.
This has been happening for 40+ years, and is part of the Dem idea that when criminals commit crimes, it is not their fault as individuals as much as the fault of society. Especially if the criminals are members of any “victimized group”.
This socialization of responsibility, rather than assigning individual responsibility, is a chief reason every kind of socialism includes trampling on {individual} human rights.
All real rights are individual rights. Helping and protecting the freedom of individuals, while requiring from them responsibility, is what made America Great. We need to go back towards individual responsibility, and freedom.
I wish to make two points: First, national crime statistics document that in a country of well over three hundred million no more than four hundred murders annually are committed with rifles. There are now tens of millions of rifles in private hands. Of this number no more than a few million are so-called “assault rifles.” Because of their expense and methods of distribution, it is unlikely that even as many as a hundred or so such rifles are used to effect unlawful killings. Given these numbers, it is impossible to characterize proposals for the confiscation of such rifles from lawful and law abiding owners as reasonable in any sense. Rather, these proposals carry the unwashed armpit stench of cultural bigotry.
Second, I am opposed to open carry. When I carry a weapon in public, I always carry concealed. I do so for a couple of reasons. The first of these is civility. Many of my fellow citizens are not gun owners and are frightened of them. I have no desire to make them uncomfortable and nervous as they go about their daily business. The second reason is that open carry is completely stupid. With a bit of practice you can draw and fire a concealed firearm as quickly as you can from open carry. And if you are ever in a situation justifying the use of deadly force in defense of self or others, you have a significant tactical advantage if the aggressor does not identify you as a threat until you actually present your firearm.
This I have absolutely no problem with stores banning open carry on their premises. Devotees of open carry have no problem with being rude to others. This tells me they have problems with boundaries. Not something I wish to see with someone stalking about with a Big Iron on their hip. And they are simply stupid from a tactical standpoint. These fashion accessory commandos make me nervous too. I can do without their machismo.
MIKE GUENTER on September 8, 2019 at 11:11 am
* *
A couple of points on the shoplifting cave-in:
(1) The whole fiasco of Oberlin vs Gibson Bakery turns on that point; stores were putting up with continual shoplifting by students (and others), until it became an implied “right” of the community to steal without consequence; the bakers “broke the rules” and that is why they had to be punished. Fortunately, sanity won that round.
(2) The problem of Somalian piracy was exacerbated by the ship owners refusing to fight back “because somebody might get hurt” which was true — they just let insurance cover their losses, or swallowed them. Once somebody (well, several countries) started fighting back, the piracy abated (long standing problem; see Jefferson & The Barbary Pirates).
A policy of non-confrontation isn’t new in retail trade; I worked in my Dad’s five-and-dime store in high school, and he wouldn’t let us do anything more drastic than follow the thugs around and glare at them, hopefully hastening their departure with a minimum of goods. Then, as now, it was mostly a safety issue.
If he DID decide to detain a paricularly egregious one, though, we knew the police would back him up, and there would not be any protest groups or other nonsense.
This is rather disturbing:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/08/report-u-s-government-asks-apple-google-to-hand-over-gun-owner-data/
The Feds claim to have good reasons, but we’ve heard that line before.
Thoughts of a mass shooter: ” Hmm. I wonder where I should stage my mass shooting? NRA Convention or Krogers? BRA Convention or Walmart? NRA Convention or CVS? Why, I think I’ll try the BRA Convention! Should be an easy target. “
NRA not BRA! My Kindle has a dirty mind!
The moment a company gets sued to bankruptcy because their policy endangered x, y or z during a mass shooting, is when the company stops doing that. Shareholders and what not, don’t like stupidities like lawsuits that can be avoided.
The Feds claim to have good reasons, but we’ve heard that line before.
The feds have backdoors they can use. They don’t need to lodge an official request. It is likely that they have found data the ATF or whatever can “use” that they now need an “official declaration” of the evidence chain.
Snow on Pine on September 7, 2019 at 6:23 pm said:
As someone quipped after these virtue signalling announcements, these businesses–and especially Walmart–have bowed to pressure from people who would probably never set foot in their stores, to the detriment of their actual customers.
It seems to me that by instituting this policy these businesses have deliberately made their customers less safe in their respective stores.
Our society is a very litigious one and, given this, I wonder what sort of suit someone who might someday be the victim of a shooting at one of these businesses–which have declared that they want no legally carried guns to be carried into their stores–might be able to bring, on the theory that–by these prohibitions–these businesses have increased the chances of such an attack happening and, moreover, deliberately banned the potential for help from someone lawfully carrying a weapon.
In order to find the companies at fault, video evidence must be obtained of employees or guards of the private premise, to be seen confiscating or otherwise disallowing said person from carrying, which results in said casualties.
So called signs are legally “safe” because they are not enforceable in and of itself. Oh these companies aren’t stupid. They called their lawyers first.
To avoid censorship as a problem, they get people to “self censor”. Choose carefully which conspiracy theory you will write about, because otherwise…
See, it’s not censorship if you get people to self censor!
If the company’s employees confiscated people’s 2nd Amendment stuff, that would be actionable. If the company just “suggests” that people not use their 2nd Amendment stuff.. well..
The reason why the Gaystapo activists actively sought out a Christian baker to harass and persecute, is because they understood the legal ramifications and got the appropriate evidence.
That’s how you corrupt humans work, in your corrupt so called “legal system”.
Ymarsakar–So what happens when someone, who has been “requested” not to carry, walks into one of these stores with a concealed carry gun, is found out, and is presumably ejected?
Can that ejectee sue with any chance of success?
. There are numerous studies on guns, violence and criminality. Here are some of the major studies that you should read to become knowledgeable on the subject.
Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Under the Gun, Crime and Violence in America” (1983) National Institute of Justice
Professor Gary Kleck, “Point Blank, Guns and Violence in America” (1991).
Dr. Charles Wellford; et al, “Firearms and Violence: a Critical review” (2004) National Academy of Sciences.
If you read these studies, you will find there is no evidence that demonstrates the availability of guns has any measurable effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape or burglary.
You might also find this paper interesting. https://www.academia.edu/23055224/Gun_control_in_the_United_States
Snow on Pine on September 9, 2019 at 10:51 am said:
Ymarsakar–So what happens when someone, who has been “requested” not to carry, walks into one of these stores with a concealed carry gun, is found out, and is presumably ejected?
That’s why Gaystapo puts up sting operations. The legal result is not guaranteed but… it can become a legal basis for prosecution at least.
Putting people into compromising situations is how you Lawfare them to death. Remember Margaret? They may still get off, as the Christian bakers. But the second time? The Third? The Fourth? Heh. Companies need their lawyers for more than this waste of time.
That’s why FBI keeps “asking you questions” and asking you “do you remember”, all while not keeping it recorded. They have the authority to make stuff up from their notes, but citizens need actual evidence to make a claim.
Fishing expeditions are not guaranteed, that is why they need to keep fishing.
Can that ejectee sue with any chance of success?
It has to be directly tied to damage and loss of life. Which is to say, if as a result of this case, the shooting happened on that day, then it would be hard for lawyers to lawfare themselves out of that defense wise. But the chances are that is so low, that the corporate lawyers probably did a weasel and said “signs are ok”.
It would be easier to do the sting with “open carry” ,not concealed. A state with open carry must be targeted, and a corporation with a policy that may not have been tailored to an open carry state.
This creates easy evidence of said corporation doing something pro active that may lead to damages. Instead of negligence, which is harder to prove. If said suit is tied with “violation of Constitutional rights”, then it can be upgraded to a class action, where multiple people can sue for damages, even though they may not have exercised their rights so to speak at the time.
Corporations can be hurt, like tobacco, just for covering up certain biased information in their research that showed that cigarettes were “healthy”. If enough damage accumulates, and evidence there is that the corporation was negligent or actively covering stuff up that lead to the damages, then it is easier to claim damages in civil court. But that’s why they have signs. Signs are not in itself the reason why tobacco companies were liable.
The problem with pharmaceutical companies, their vaccines and drugs, and other corporations protected by their government sugar daddy, is that they cannot be held Liable.
Cannot Be Held Liable. This is in Federal Law. You have to appeal to a federal arbitration court (staffed by IRS type bureaucrats who you know are just your lovable neighbors… like your Park Rangers putting a rod to veterans when closing public land…) to get any kind of “restitution”.
Tobacco and sin companies never had this immunity. Nor does Walmart or other “smaller cap” corps.
These corps are vulnerable and would never have done these stupidities, had it not been for the marketing power of Facebook and social media pressuring them at the highest levels.
The original Deep State plan was to use 9/11 (did you hear that 9/11 was an inside job done by the Deep State? FBI was pretty competent in finding the hijacker ID info right afterwards while they were pretty slow before then) and terrorism as an excuse.
All the “terrorist” attacks would lead to Hussein or somebody declaring Martial law, remember that scenario.
What happened to it? Something interrupted it. Now we have “domestic terrorism”…
Recall that Donald Rumsfeld declared that the Pentagon had lost 2.3 ish trillion in funding. Eh? DO people realize what that means? The Deep State can only exist if it has funding for licit and illicit activities. ANd if they have funding that Congress doesn’t know it… that makes it a whole lot easier. How many American citizens can you torture and kill with 2.3 trillion?
I, personally, can think of a lot of ways to use that money given even my limited capabilities. Imagine what the DS can do with it.
This was the day before 9/11. September 10th that Rumsfeld got on air to talk about this. Then tomorrow the Pentagon gets hits and all the internal investigators and their records… went bye bye. Haha. That’s so coincidental, isn’t it.
Nothing awful would happen to us because of the government and the DS right. Nothing bad happens.
Concealed carry laws vary from state to state and sometimes there is reciprocity between states. As far as I know, all states that issue concealed carry permits require some amount of training. In my state you must have 15 hours of classroom training and then pass a handling and shooting test on a range. This is commonplace and it is good, even if the holder chooses not to carry at all.
In most states, there are federal no-gun venues which include all federal buildings and some open areas such as Post Office parking lots. There are places where state laws prohibit carry such as schools, hospitals, sporting events, bars, etc., and usually any building owner can post “no guns allowed” if they choose; however, if the building isn’t a specified prohibited zone by statute, but rather by ownership, the owner can only ask the carrier to leave. If the carrier refuses, they are subject to arrest for trespassing and nothing more. Consequently, I disregard such signs routinely and if asked to leave, which has never happened, I will cheerfully comply. A well-concealed pistol should be, well, undetectable.
Frankly, while I’m opposed to gun control rules and I believe gun free zones are shooting galleries, it’s unwise to carry openly. If you are paying for gas when the store’s robbed, the first person shot is the one carrying a gun on his/her belt.
James Holmes in Aurora, CO, Chose the only gun-free theater showing Batman for his mass murder, after 2.5 months of planning.
In the wake of the spate of recent mass shootings, and at first blush, the proposed “Red Flag” laws seemed like a good idea.
Hey, people are clamoring for the authorities to “do something,” well, here it is.
After all, as we’ve later found out in the case of these shootings, and previous ones as well, a lot of these mass shooters had been giving off all sorts of signals that—if heeded—could have given people a pretty reasonable chance of preventing these shootings by staging some sort of “intervention,” these people’s guns could have been taken away from them, and they could have been given the mental health and/or addiction treatment they pretty obviously needed—likely whether they liked it or not.
But, on further reflection, such laws are not a good idea.
As I understand these proposals—some form of these Red Flag laws already on the books in a reported 17 states—all that needs to happen to trigger a confrontation and confiscation of one’s weapons is an allegation from somebody—apparently just about anybody—and—boom—the cops, or perhaps even a SWAT team—are at your door, and taking your guns and your Second Amendment and other Constitutionally guaranteed Rights away—even though you have not confronted an accuser, not had your day in court, not committed a crime, you have not been convicted of anything, and your “day in court” could be many months away—with you having to spend a likely large amount of money and effort to hire a lawyer to present your case, and to prove you “innocence.”
Given all of the corruption, misconduct, illegality, and incompetence we have seen by the Federal government—and local governments as well, the viciousness of today’s politics, and the attacks from the Left and the lengths to which they are willing to go, it is crystal clear that such a system is open to huge abuse—all it takes is an angry ex-wife, a “concerned” neighbor, an enemy at work, someone who doesn’t like your politics, or simply a prankster making that call, and you are subject to a raid by a SWAT team, your house potentially trashed, and your dog and possibly you or others in your household injured or even killed.
This, before even considering all of the major Constitutional issues involved in this kind of preemptive law/procedure, and its potential to be the “nose under the tent” procedure/law which establishes the precedent that will lead—sooner or later—to general gun registration and, ultimately, to nation-wide confiscation of everyone’s guns and the disarming of the population.
Find some other way, one that doesn’t infringe on citizen’s Second Amendment and other Rights, or at least conforms to their protections.
P.S. —
This issue also brings up the “militarization” of police departments around the country, via their getting surplus, heavy duty military hardware–weapons, vehicles, and other equipment–and their tendency to want to–once they have all that fancy equipment and firepower–use it, and whether such overwhelming force and firepower, such overkill is, in all cases, warranted in a civilian setting.
There have been a number of cases around the country here SWAT team raids have gone bad, and innocent civilians have been “accidentally” killed. Do we want more of that?
While we’re at it, lets also talk about how the Obama Administration allowed/encouraged all sorts of civilian, governmental entities–large and small-reportedly more than 70 of them–to “arm up,” to create and/or expand the number of their armed agents/forces, and to procure and stockpile arms and large amounts of ammunition, with one 2016 report saying that there were more than 200,000 armed non-Defense Federal officers now carrying weapons (by contrast the U.S. Marine Corps had, then, less than 200,000 members). *
Moreover, according to a 2016 report, Federal officers with firearms and arrest powers jumped from 75,400 in 1996 to over 200,000 in 2016.
Who knows how many such officers there are today?
So, does, for instance, the Department of Education need pump shotguns, does the National Bureau of Standards need armed officers, does the Social Security Administration need lots of armed agents to fend off angry geezers?
Something is out of whack here.
* See,for instance this analysis at https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf
Obviously, in all this, some sort of balance has to be struck.
But, I don’t know where that “balance” might be.