True story this.. guns all around us in everyday life..

[Peacetrain]

My husband went to the grocery store.. the grocery store folks.. and there was someone walking though the store with a side arm strapped on.. Not a policeman or undercover police.. Where have we gone as a country that people now think its a good idea to walk around armed and ready to shoot..

I grew up with guns.. my Dad hunted... so guns per se does not bother me.. but this attitude of strutting around ready for some gun battle in makes no sense to me..


Edit to add.. why did I put this in primaries.. because just reading where different candidates stand on gun control..

Its important I think

This was locked in primaries and I was told to post it in GD...

[NutmegYankee]

1. Some of the Ultra gun rights people believe the best defense is a good offense.

They seek to expand the right to own to offset attempts to reduce the right to own. I support private ownership, but oppose the carrying in public. It's obnoxious and sophomoric. All it does is alarm people and make them feel unsafe.

[Peacetrain]

2. That was the exact reaction my husband had...

It was so disconcerting.. walking among the aisles of shopper with little kids in carts and a handgun strapped to his waist..

[Eleanors38]

16. The individual states can regulate the manner of carry...

They can, respectively, allow concealed carry, open carry, or both. They cannot deny both.

Personally, I prefer concealed-carry, and then a shall-issue license after testing. Unfortunately, the state of debate has approached whack-a-mole status in which one side pushes for pell-mell restrictions (without the movement or means to accomplish them), and the other a juggernaut, no longer content with playing "defense" of a right, is on the offense. It has very appropriately, in my estimation, liberalized gun control laws (esp. In the South where Jim [large, raucous black bird] laws criminalized gun-ownership by blacks), and rightly fought for the right to Bear arms. Now, you have politicians coming up with more measures to prove their bonafides with their constituencies, and to embarass opponents by testing their 2A commitment. No matter what one may think of the individual proposals, the name of the game is to bulk up and tear down, and there is little air left in the room to push for, say, universal BG checks, or enhancing concealed-carry and restricting open-carry, or requiring tests for either.

I think many gun-control/prohibitionists don't yet realize the quite enduring wasp nest frenzy they have stirred up, so they continue with the same tactics of throw-on-wall, see-what-sticks, and the cartoon caricatures. One method quite understandably signals the ultimate goal is prohibition; the other is counter-productive culture war.

[rock]

7. "... make them feel unsafe ..."

So would the conclude the ammosexual is a bully or a bully-want-a-be? I would.

[NutmegYankee]

17. It depends.

Some want to intimidate or bully, others are just too oblivious or stupid to understand that they scare people.

[rock]

29. Possible, but oblivious or stupid

Are also apt characteristics for bullies.

[KT2000]

32. they are flashers

only with guns. Same mindset.

[SheilaT]

3. It's only going to be a matter of time before

there's an actual shoot-out somewhere, and even more innocent people than usual get killed.

I do know that if I'm ever in a store and see someone armed, I will leave and on the way out make it very clear to management why I am leaving, and that I won't return until they put up one of those signs letting idiots know their guns are not welcome there.

[Peacetrain]

4. That is my feeling.. I did not grow up with people packing in public places

Guns do not bother me per se as I said in my op... but people who have become so fearful of those around them, that they only feel safe if they are wearing a gun.. are people who could go off very quickly thinking they are in harms way.. I do not understand the point to it at all.. I know a lot of people have concealed carry and I do not even know they have guns on them.. This was more of a taunt almost.. unsettling to say the least

[Cake14N]

46. Please post a sign on your front door...

that says no guns inside. Be sure to post it in large, block letters so everybody can read it from the street. It would be really nice if you make sure the sign is well lit, so it can be read at night.

See how that works for you. Let the idiots know you are defenseless and are relying on the mercy of the Police to "Protect and Serve" you while you wait for 911 to answer your cries for help.

Been carrying for a lot of years and have NEVER seen an incident where there was a shoot-out on isle nine over the last can of beans...

[SheilaT]

49. Perhaps you should

be wearing a signboard that says you're carrying, exactly what weapon, and how much ammunition.

[Cake14N]

50. ....

SheilaT,

You don't need to be afraid of people legally carrying a weapon. We have been through some form of education on local, state, and national laws, proven to a certified instructor that we can safely use our weapon of choice, submitted fingerprints for the FBI to use to verify no criminal record, authorized the issuing authority access to our medical records to verify we have zero mental health issues, and spent a great deal of time discussing a wide array of scenarios to assess whether we would recognize the need to use the weapon or the phone. 99.99% of the time, these discussions lead to using the phone rather than the weapon.

So, back to the original issue, if you feel the need to leave a store because somebody is carrying a weapon, go ahead. Go find that store that has a sign posted outside, and realize that the only people in that store that will have weapons will be the criminals that ignore the laws.

[SheilaT]

51. I find it incredibly offensive

that you suggest I post on my front door that I don't have a gun, and practically wish that someone would then break in. I probably should have alerted on that, but I didn't.

I happen to think that all guns should be taken away, which is an extremely unpopular position to take, but I'm so fucking tired of all these killings and all the apologies for why people can have guns. I often also sincerely wish that those who support this idiocy would themselves have a loved one killed by a gun, and usually those posts get hidden. Can't imagine why, since I'm only suggesting that those who support all the guns should be the ones to suffer from them, not those of us who don't think all these guns whould be out there.

[Cake14N]

52. Sorry to be so offensive.

But your comments and what appears to be an unwillingness to at least look at the issue from a different viewpoint are extremely offensive to me.

I humbly suggest that you vote with your feet and never enter a store that does not have a no-guns sign. Give those business that think the same as you your business and help them stay afloat. That is perhaps the best t hing you can do. You can spend your money to support those with the same ideas that you have.

I too am tired of all of the killings. The real issue here is not that there are guns, the issue is that we have not figured out how to keep those guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. How many times do we read that "the system" failed because the police failed to document an offender, paperwork was not entered into a system, mental health records were not submitted, it goes on and on. These people use loopholes in the system to get their guns and then take advantage of places that do not allow guns to take their action.

I fully support background checks for EVERY gun purchase, no matter where it happens. I also know that this system is not 100% and things will slip through the cracks.

Look at some of the mass shootings we have seen in recent years. Where have they taken place? Mostly in places where guns are not allowed. The theater in Denver, not the closest to the perpetrators house, not the easiest to get into and out of, but the one that had a no guns sign. He knew that there was a high likelihood that nobody could shoot back until the cops arrived.

You can find many more example of situations just like this. If you care to look at all sides of the issue.

[notadmblnd]

5. Personally, I don't want to be around people who live their lives in such fear that they believe

there is a boogie man around every corner and that they have to be armed.

[Peacetrain]

6. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

my thoughts also..

[villager]

8. The people carrying in public are both juvenile and deranged, increasing hallmarks of the

pro-gun proliferation side.

And no one wants to be around an angry, juvenile, deranged person who's packing.

[Peacetrain]

9. I am in my 60's villager

I have never seen anything like this with guns being so prolific.. And the thing that makes me the saddest in the long run is how used to mass murder we have seemed to become..

[villager]

10. I'm a few years behind you, age-wise, but I agree

The other shocking thing is how the pro-gun forces have been axiomatically trained to dismiss any and all mass murders, as if they should be ignored, and tell us nothing about the nexus between gun proliferation and "end times" (in terms of stable polities, climates, or economies) violence..

[Peacetrain]

12. You cannot even mourn the loss of life

that the gun lobby is not out almost blaming victims of violence for any attempt to limit their access to military grade fire arms.. this has nothing to do with protection or hunting..

[villager]

14. Right. The gun lobby, its posters here, etc., are busy quibbling over nomenclature for model numbers

and magazine sizes, before the blood has even cooled on the floor...

Anything to divert and shut down the discussion.

[beevul]

19. Its not 'quibbling' when the anti-gun side misrepresents the facts.

See 'military grade'. Such terminology is a misrepresentation to begin with, and you are misrepresenting the argument over it, as 'quibbling over nomenclatur'.

Such misrepresentations are intended to lead to a false conclusion, and we all know it.

[villager]

20. And you see, you can't even respond to the OP, or what this thread is about

You come here to quibble about the pro-gunners quibbling....

[beevul]

21. Like I said, calling it a 'quibble' is a misrepresentation.

Facts matter. At least to some of us.

[villager]

22. Beevul, instead of so predictably trying to derail the thread, tell us *your* response to the OP

Do you like open carry?

Does it not bother you a whit? Do you carry guns into the grocery store yourself? What?

What are the "facts" about this particular issue -- the OP's -- as they pertain to your own life?

[beevul]

24. *My* response?

Do you like open carry? Does it not bother you a whit?

I really neither like nor dislike it.

Do you carry guns into the grocery store yourself?

Other than carrying a gun out on the property here on the farm, I don't carry a gun at all.

What are the "facts" about this particular issue -- the OP's -- as they pertain to your own life?

I'm not really sure what exactly you're fishing for with that, but for what its worth, I haven't bought a gun in over ten years. I haven't been to a gun show in several years. I haven't bought ammunition in several years. I do not own a rifle that with modern military resemblance, nor do I have any inclination to. I do not have a concealed carry license, nor do I have any inclination to.

Is that what you were looking for?

[villager]

26. Good answers. Appreciate the direct response.

So you're neutral on open carry, yet remained opposed to most suggestions to further restrict trade/sale of guns?

Or are there some you support -- enhanced background checks, etc.?

[beevul]

28. Define 'enhanced'.

enhanced background checks

Define 'enhanced'. The details are everything.

yet remained opposed to most suggestions to further restrict trade/sale of guns?

I reject all proposals for arbitrary restrictions, licensing and registration. Its a right not a privilege, and I will not support changing it from one to the other, as many anti-gun folks would like to.

Now its your turn:

What means of tacking gun violence, outside restrictions on 'trade/sale of guns' are you interested in, and how much are you interested in them compared to your interest to restrict the 'trade/sale of guns'?

[villager]

30. Define "arbitrary"

The details are, indeed, everything.

Not sure what you mean about "outside" of my admitted interest in restricting the availability of guns, etc.

You used the word "fishing" earlier -- are you fishing for some kind of response insinuating I care less about the mental health aspects as well...?

[beevul]

31. "Arbitrary".

I define 'arbitrary' as 'gun control for the sake of gun control'. The so called 'assault weapon ban' is one such example.

You used the word "fishing" earlier -- are you fishing for some kind of response insinuating I care less about the mental health aspects as well...?

Its not a matter of what you care about. Its a matter of what you focus on.

Like the SOP of bansalot says "...there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence...".

Yet all I ever see here on DU from the anti-gun folks, is talk about a single solution.

More gun control.

What ways of mitigating gun violence, other than gun control, are you interested in?

[villager]

35. First of all, I'd like to try actual gun control

Including an assault weapons ban.

Your rhetorical flourish of referring to "gun control for the sake of gun control" aside, what kinds of gun control wouldn't be "for the sake of control?"

I suppose if you referred to it as "for the sake of previous victims of gun violence," that might not be as, well, flourish-y.

Another question: If you're so minimally invested in guns yourself, what kind of effects would the types of gun control supported by most DUers -- including a resumption of the assault weapons ban -- have your own, actual, personal life?

(As for mental health, I'm also in favor of diverting copious amounts of resources now used to prop up the MIC, for expanded health care/housing/employment options, so fewer souls fall "off the reservation" -- en route to their mass shootings....)

[beevul]

37. Of course you would.

First of all, I'd like to try actual gun control Including an assault weapons ban.

Of course you would. Color me shocked. We tried an AW ban. It did not do what its proponents claimed, because what its proponents claimed it would do, and the pretext for demanding it, were falsehoods. People like you are still clamoring for it, misrepresenting semi-automatic weapons as 'military grade', in spite of the fact that no military in the world uses the firearms in question. Not a single one.

Your rhetorical flourish of referring to "gun control for the sake of gun control" aside, what kinds of gun control wouldn't be "for the sake of control?"

Background checks at retail are not. Firearms-centric regs, like the much demanded AWB, however, mostly are.

I suppose if you referred to it as "for the sake of previous victims of gun violence," that might not be as, well, flourish-y.

They're not 'previous victims of gun violence', they're previous victims of people who commit gun violence. The guns just don't get up and do it on their own. Nobody was ever killed by a drunken car, but lots are killed by drunk drivers. Same thing.

Another question: If you're so minimally invested in guns yourself, what kind of effects would the types of gun control supported by most DUers -- including a resumption of the assault weapons ban -- have your own, actual, personal life?

I don't have any desire to have my choices limited on the grounds that .05 percent of gun owners misuse firearms against others. I may be 'minimally invested' in guns, but I'm maximally invested in my rights and keeping them.

Its a principle thing.

On top of that, you guys call for gun control all the time. Occasionally, you even get it. You got an AWB in CT. And now you want that exact thing at the federal level, presumably with 'mass shootings' as the pretext. Why will it succeed federally when if failed in CT?

I know the answer: It wont.

I think background checks at retail, and background checks on private sales at the state level are about all you guys can reasonably expect at this point. I also think you guys are in for a rude awakening, when CCW goes nationwide, reciprocity and all.

You guys need to start thinking outside the gun control box, at mitigation strategies, rather than prohibition strategies.

On edit:

First of all, I'd like to try actual gun control

Are you saying that what we have now is NOT actual gun control? Put your money where your mouth is, and tell me which of the ten thousand plus state local and federal gun laws, which are not 'actual gun control', that you'd support eliminating.

[villager]

38. Are there any limits on any kind of weapons you'd support?

The NRA talking point, of course, is "machine guns," but let's dispense with that inevitable talking point right now.

Of any makes, models, etc., currently/easily available at shows, shops, etc., are there any you think should be restricted simply because their existence on our streets (and in our homes) is a bad idea?

Or are you "cool" with America's current arsenal?

We do agree on better background checks, however.

[beevul]

39. When it comes to non-nfa firearms, no.

The NRA talking point, of course, is "machine guns," but let's dispense with that inevitable talking point right now.

I personally think the NFA registry should be opened up, beyond that I'd leave NFA stuff alone, legislatively speaking.

Of any makes, models, etc., currently/easily available at shows, shops, etc., are there any you think should be restricted simply because their existence on our streets (and in our homes) is a bad idea?

Absolutely not. Non-automatic firearms, constitute 100 percent of the privately owned non-nfa firearms in America, and as such, I can not and will not support a ban on any of them. Beyond that, when it comes to non-nfa firearms, I see the concerns for what people have in their homes exactly the same way as I see concerns about people having a dildo in their home:

As personal, private, and nobodys business.

I've been good about answering yours, now how about responding in kind and answer mine:

Are you saying that what we have now is NOT actual gun control? Put your money where your mouth is, and tell me which of the ten thousand plus state local and federal gun laws, which are not 'actual gun control', that you'd support eliminating.

[Positrons]

40. There are lots of people I don't want to be around...

... and yet here they are.

What's your point?

[notadmblnd]

43. You have the choice not to be here

tata

[Positrons]

45. I was referring to the real world...

Same place with all the scary guns...

Aren't you the friendly one btw...

[NRaleighLiberal]

47. Totally. Same here.

[KG]

11. I've only been around one gun owner in my life that was mature enough to have one

the rest have been insecure twerps that needed their self-confidence to fit into a holster.

[Peacetrain]

13. If they are so insecure that they have to open carry

in public.. they have bigger issues than gun rights in imho

[Vinca]

15. If I ever entered a business and saw someone with a gun I'd leave.

How do you tell the "good guys" with a gun from the "bad guys" with a gun? Who's sane and who's loony?

[hunter]

18. Not in my city.

Our local grocery store has "No Firearms" signs on the doors, but beyond that open carry is against the law too.

The only people who carry guns are police, gangsters, and people seeking "suicide-by-cop."

Household burglars are frequently seeking guns. Being obvious about one's gun love makes one's house a target. Criminals buy their cheap Chinese home electronics at Best Buy like everyone else.

It often impresses me that the only places people commonly "open carry" or even "concealed carry" are places where carrying a gun isn't likely to get them shot. It's not because "an armed society is a polite society," that's bullshit and most everyone in high crime places knows it. People in rougher neighborhoods know that being the "good guy" with a gun makes you the first one shot by the "bad guys" or the police.

More often than not guns will turn a difficult uncomfortable situation into a tragedy. Some disturbed moron shooting his daughter's boyfriend, his wife's lover, himself, people in a theater, or random unarmed black kids saying harsh words to them.

I've never seen any reason to respect gun lovers or their precious guns, most cops included.

[aikoaiko]

23. I didn't see that in NJ but did when I moved to Flagstaff AZ in the 1980s

It surprised me at first, but then I never thought more about it.

Since then I started shooting and owning guns. I have no desire to open carry, but I do have my permit to concealed carry and have done so a couple of times.

[ileus]

25. For every OCer you don't see 25 CCers

Sure I OC'd yesterday but that was during a 10 mile float trip on the kayak. The only time I oc is for comfort and that's typically for river floats, jeep/bike rides, or hunting.

All other times are conceal carry..hell even my "Open Carry" was covered by a long sleeve fishing shirt. So really I don't even OC.

[madinmaryland]

33. I'm curious about why you would carry a gun when you are on a 10 mile trip in a kayak??

[Mika]

34. I guess you've not seen Sharknado. n/t

[Thor_MN]

36. There's nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito...

[beevul]

41. Theres mosquitos, and theres MOSQUITOS.

And I'll tell you what, most mosquito bites are mildly annoying...these big buggers HURT, and they're incredibly hard to hit.

Not that I'd suggest shooting them...but anyway...

[benld74]

27. I believe what will eventuall happen,,,

will be sad and scary. A shoot out, at a civilian filled building/event/location. Where a 2nd amendment loving individual will be involved, along with police, and an actual deranged shooter. Innocent people will be lost. Lawsuits filed against the 2nd Amend guy. Whose defense will be protecting himself. BUT the jury will think otherwise.

[Positrons]

42. Assuming it does happen...

That would be one incident in decades...

Hardly indicative...

[oneshooter]

44. When the cops miss and hit/kill innocent people should they also be charged with murder? n/t

[onethatcares]

48. if you grew up in the 50s and 60s

I think our parents that served in WW2 had enough of killing and enough of guns. Some of them, my dad and uncles included, had hunting rifles or shotguns. They didn't need to carry their balls outside of their pants to prove they were men.