Guns: Why Not Non-Concealed Carry?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Commit murder"? What on earth are you babbling about? Here you go again implying that merely carrying a gun magically possess people to commit crimes.
Oh, wait. You weren't actually implying that killing someone in self-defense is "murder", were you? First she was a "**** asking for it" by dressing provocatively, and now she's also a "murderer" for defending herself against a violent assault. Nice.

Interesting take on blaming the victim, except you should know that usually, when an incident ends with one person dead and the other not, the presumed victim is the dead person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting take on blaming the victim, except you should know that usually, when an incident ends with one person dead and the other not, the presumed victim is the dead person.

If I may venture to speak of FH's post......
In cases where the victim defends herself by killing her assailant, it's not "murder".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jeff, a good example would be a bank guard. Those poor guys don't make it through a robbery very often.

For those security guards to be relevant in this discussion, they would have to have been killed because of the visibility of their weapon and not, for instance, the visibility of their uniform (since average citizens wouldn't be wearing a uniform). They would also have to have been shot while they had their gun in their holster (since the difference between open carry and concealed carry goes away as soon as the gun is drawn).

All I need is a couple of seconds head start.

My point was that a drawn gun is just as visible whether it was carried openly or concealed before it was drawn.

Nice assumption that I don't use a holster. Galco makes some excellent leather inside the waist holsters. I use the same holster sky marshals use.

I didn't assume that you don't use a holster. We're talking about concealed carry in general, not just you. The case of someone with a concealed weapon who is abiding by all the rules but doing the bare minimum that they require is relevant here.

I would for open carry which I don't approve of unless you are at the gun range, hunting, hiking, fishing, that sort of thing away from crowds.

Would you support a similar rule for concealed carry: it has to be in a proper holster?

Because you do not have the right to know if I am carrying a gun or not.

I disagree. IMO, the moment your actions impact me - and I would say that creating a risk, even a small one, to my life and limb constitutes "impact" - I get a say in what you do. I think that a measure that doesn't stop you from carrying a weapon, but simply gives me the chance to make an informed choice if I want to be around you when you are carrying it is the bare minimum of what should be considered reasonable.

You just don;t get it do you? Lawless people don't concern themselves with laws and penalties.

On the contrary: I don't think you get it. The world is not black and white. The world isn't made up of "law abiding people" and "lawless people"; it's made up of a spectrum, and the spectrum varies from circumstance to circumstance. It's all a balance, and some "law-abiding" people can be persuaded to break the law in the right circumstances while some "lawless" people can be persuaded to abide by the law with the right deterrent.

And I don't think there's a single person on the planet who's entirely "lawless" or "law-abiding" anyhow. Everyone picks and chooses the laws they obey and don't. One person might only do rolling stops at stop signs because he thinks he's safe to proceed; another might not secure her firearm properly because she thinks the risk of having it stolen by a pickpocket is negligible. Part of getting people to obey the law on any particular issue is to get the message across to people that the issue is important, or at least that they'll get caught if they don't comply. Plenty of generally law-abiding people are usually happy to break laws that they think aren't a big deal if they think they can get away with it.

Level Three holsters lock the gun in place and slow down a gun grab, not prevent it. There is usually a release lever or button that can be found after a short time.

Yes... this ties into what I'm saying: increase the cost of snatching a gun - both by making it difficult to do and making the sentence for doing it high - and you'll deter it. No measure, including concealed carry, can ever eliminate the problem completely as long as firearms are present in public places.

No, if I draw my weapon, the bad guy is going to be DRT, (Dead Right There). If you use the right tactics, most people hear the gun before they see it and if employed correctly it would be too late for them to respond.

If these "right tactics" aren't legally mandated, then I'm not going to count on any random CCW holder actually following them.

It is none of your business Jeff. When we transport a nuclear weapon, do you really believe there are signs? I guess you should google "Ghost Trucks" You do not have a need to know everything. People are allowed to CCW and who does and who does not is a private thing.

It's all a balance of needs and priorities. By bringing a dangerous item into a public place, you are increasing the risk to the people around you. Your desire for privacy is one priority in the balance; the bystander's desire to choose their own level of risk is another. Weighing just those factors against each other, I think it would be worse to deny those bystanders a free, informed choice than it would be to deny you a measure of privacy.

And in cases like "ghost trucks", there are other issues like national security on the balance as well. Maybe in the case of ballistic missile warhead movements, security trumps the public's right to know about the hazards they're exposed to, but the fact that you're packing heat isn't exactly a state secret.

If you're going to put people at risk without their knowledge, you'd better have a damned compelling reason to do so. So far, AFAICT, the only reason given is that you don't want to, and you think that you might get hassled occasionally if people knew you had a firearm on you. To me, that's not a compelling reason.

You're talking about denying your fellow citizens a small measure of self-determination - i.e. freedom - to win a small measure of convenience for yourself. I remember an old quote about people who do this.

I agree, but you can have a properly designed CCW holster with under 1 second draws, most people can draw and fire under 2 seconds easily.

Oh, I should mention the level three holster have a slower draw time, but I still think the delay is acceptable for the amount of safety it provides.

Now, I have said all this fast draw stuff is pretty much fictional....... but....... I can draw and fire from a concealed holster faster than someone with a level three holster can.

Okay. Fair enough... provided the person with the concealed weapon has a proper holster. It just sounded strange to me that a concealed weapon could be drawn quicker than one that was carried openly.

Now... the question that this leads to is how much this advantage is worth.

That is your culture and mindset. If you lived other places your opinion might change or at least be more tolerant of the gun culture.

Maybe. I've found that people tend to underestimate the risks of things in their daily life. For instance, look at how nonchalantly many people treat backyard pools.

But frankly, as an outsider, it seems to me that the US has a bit of a double personality when it comes to safety. Your country is one where haggis and Kinder Surprise eggs are considered too dangerous to bring into the country, but then you allow handguns all over the place and a significant percentage of the country freaks out at the idea of reasonable limits on magazine sizes. You go on about personal freedom, but are happy with being denied the freedom to smoke a Cuban cigar or vacation at a resort in Varadero, to say nothing about violations of habeas corpus like the Patriot Act. It makes no sense.

Have you ever heard the saying, "Better a trial by 12 than be carried to your grave by 6"?

Have you ever heard the saying "to the man with a hammer, everything is a nail"?

You see this is the liberal mindset. You want a man who has lived his entire life without so much as a traffic ticket who was drafted in the military and served his country. Raised a family, paid his taxes, carried a gun all his life without incident who has more gun training than most police officers to become a criminal when you pass restrictive laws.

You just assume I will become a law breaker if you change the laws which is insulting but partially true and your kind will champion it that you can take away my freedoms and turn me into a common criminal after more than 60 years.

Don't pin your words on me. You were the one who said you'd carry a hidden "BUG" if concealed carry was outlawed.

 

[Alceste]

If I may venture to speak of FH's post......
In cases where the victim defends herself by killing her assailant, it's not "murder".

Sometimes people misconstrue the threat level of an "assailant". If you kill somebody who only wants to steal your money, or wants to sell you girlscout cookies, I would consider that murder.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes people misconstrue the threat level of an "assailant". If you kill somebody who only wants to steal your money, or wants to sell you girlscout cookies, I would consider that murder.

Yes, rape is so similar to those things.
False equiv.....never mind.

 

[Father Heathen]

Interesting take on blaming the victim,

Calling someone forced to kill in self-defense a "murderer" is blaming the victim.

except you should know that usually, when an incident ends with one person dead and the other not, the presumed victim is the dead person.

Developed countries typically have investigations and courts to make that determination, and I don't suspect that any civilized society would punish someone for defending themselves.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sometimes people misconstrue the threat level of an "assailant". If you kill somebody who only wants to steal your money, or wants to sell you girlscout cookies, I would consider that murder.

When someone is violently assaulting you (something rather hard to misconstrue), it's preferable to dispatch the assailant rather than risk own your life "just in case". It was their actions that placed you in that position, so the accountability falls upon them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When someone is violently assaulting you (something rather hard to misconstrue), it's preferable to dispatch the assailant rather than risk own your life "just in case". It was their actions that placed you in that position, so the accountability falls upon them.

I used to work at a department store. Our loss prevention officers all wore plain clothes and sometimes looked kinda scruffy (that was the point... so they could catch people shoplifting in the act). OTOH, the shoplifters would usually try to look like fine upstanding citizens who would never, ever steal.

Imagine you were walking along the street downtown when a nicely-dressed woman runs by you screaming, pursued by two scruffy guys. The guys tackle her and pin her to the ground. Would you feel justified drawing your weapon and "dispatching the assailants"?

 

[Apex]

I used to work at a department store. Our loss prevention officers all wore plain clothes and sometimes looked kinda scruffy (that was the point... so they could catch people shoplifting in the act). OTOH, the shoplifters would usually try to look like fine upstanding citizens who would never, ever steal.

Imagine you were walking along the street downtown when a nicely-dressed woman runs by you screaming, pursued by two scruffy guys. The guys tackle her and pin her to the ground. Would you feel justified drawing your weapon and "dispatching the assailants"?

Having worked in a department store I know that most major ones explicitly forbid their loss prevention officers from perusing shop lifters outside the store.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having worked in a department store I know that most major ones explicitly forbid their loss prevention officers from perusing shop lifters outside the store.

And from what our loss prevention officers told me, until the person actually leaves the store with the merchandise, theft hasn't actually taken place, so they're not able to stop the shoplifters. Maybe this is a difference between Canadian and American law.

Edit: I've heard stories of shoplifters who realize they're being tailed by loss prevention, so they just put the stolen merchandise on a shelf and leave. Loss prevention isn't allowed to stop them.

 

[Apex]

And from what our loss prevention officers told me, until the person actually leaves the store with the merchandise, theft hasn't actually taken place, so they're not able to stop the shoplifters. Maybe this is a difference between Canadian and American law.

Ours would stop the shop lifters as they walked out the exit. If the shop lifter ran, they would let them go and proceed to call the police. By that point there was ample video evidence (from both in and out of the store) for the cops to track the person down.

Seriously though, having your employees chase a shop lifter down the street while wearing plain clothes is just asking for a lawsuit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seriously though, having your employees chase a shop lifter down the street while wearing plain clothes is just asking for a lawsuit.

Or to be shot.

 

[Apex]

Or to be shot.

Quite frankly, yes.

Put your self in this very plausible situation. People make mistakes. Say you are in a store and, for some reason, they suspect you of trying to steal something. As you leave the store two scruffy plain clothes guys start following you. You get nervous and try to get away. They run after you. At this point all you know is you have done nothing wrong and have to scary looking guys running after you. At this point I would not hesitate, and be with my legal right, to pull a firearm on them and ask what the **** are they chasing me for!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quite frankly, yes.

Put your self in this very plausible situation. People make mistakes. Say you are in a store and, for some reason, they suspect you of trying to steal something. As you leave the store two scruffy plain clothes guys start following you. You get nervous and try to get away. They run after you. At this point all you know is you have done nothing wrong and have to scary looking guys running after you. At this point I would not hesitate, and be with my legal right, to pull a firearm on them and ask what the **** are they chasing me for!

Well, at least that wouldn't immediately have consequences as bad as Rick's "DRT" approach when he draws his weapon.

 

[Apex]

Well, at least that wouldn't immediately have consequences as bad as Rick's "DRT" approach when he draws his weapon.

Well, you also should not chase people down the street while wearing plain clothes, regardless if you think they have broken the law. Pursuing criminals in such a fashion is the job of the police, no one else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you also should not chase people down the street while wearing plain clothes, regardless if you think they have broken the law. Pursuing criminals in such a fashion is the job of the police, no one else.

So in your mind, are there never any situations where, in that split-second when you decide whether or not to use deadly force, you might either misinterpret something as an attack or threat when it's actually not, or you decide that lethal force is necessary when a less extreme response (i.e. anything from a less-lethal weapon to simply getting out of there) would have done the job?

 

[Apex]

So in your mind, are there never any situations where, in that split-second when you decide whether or not to use deadly force, you might either misinterpret something as an attack or threat when it's actually not, or you decide that lethal force is necessary when a less extreme response (i.e. anything from a less-lethal weapon to simply getting out of there) would have done the job?

Frankly, if you are dumb enough to put someone in that kind of a situation, you deserve whatever comes.

And do you think it is perfectly okay for people (not cops) to chase suspected criminals down a street while wearing plain "scruffy" clothes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Frankly, if you are dumb enough to put someone in that kind of a situation, you deserve whatever comes.

And do you think it is perfectly okay for people (not cops) to chase suspected criminals down a street while wearing plain "scruffy" clothes?

I think it's unwise, but I'm against capital punishment generally, so I'm not about to advocate killing someone for that.

 

[Father Heathen]

I used to work at a department store. Our loss prevention officers all wore plain clothes and sometimes looked kinda scruffy (that was the point... so they could catch people shoplifting in the act). OTOH, the shoplifters would usually try to look like fine upstanding citizens who would never, ever steal.

Imagine you were walking along the street downtown when a nicely-dressed woman runs by you screaming, pursued by two scruffy guys. The guys tackle her and pin her to the ground. Would you feel justified drawing your weapon and "dispatching the assailants"?

Anyone carrying a gun should be properly trained, and when you draw a weapon you're supposed to verbally warn them, ordering them to put their hands up and to lay face down on the ground, etc. unless threat of serious injury or death is imminent.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think it's unwise, but I'm against capital punishment generally, so I'm not about to advocate killing someone for that.

The objective isn't to punish or to kill, but to neutralize an imminent danger.