What do you think when you see......

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

a firearm that was being carried concealed but for some reason became exposed? and What do you do when that happens?

There have been a few instances when I have seen someone carrying a firearm in a holster in a grocery store, home improvement store, construction site, etc. Nothing intentional someone reaching for something on a high shelf, loading something into a trunk, etc. I normally just assume that they have a permit or are an off duty cop, I was just curious what other people think.

David

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. pretty much think that they have a permit to carry it.

they are PI, or off duty, does not bother me.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. Doesn't bother me either

When I was in my 20s we could check our guns in when we stopped at the local bar after target shooting. Few people batted an eye then at the single action Colt strapped on my leg. (Ohio)

I think carrying one to the hardware store seems paranoid however, and I'd question if there was a reason for it. I mean if I need a pistol to go buy nails, maybe I could find a safer store to visit.

As far as I'm concerned, I would only need a permit if I fire my gun because no one would know I'm carrying it. If I did have a legitimate cause to use it, a permit should be the least of my problems.

It seems like mentally insecure behavior to routinely pack one though. It's almost as though some people are hoping they get a chance to kill someone.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. I'm jealous. Wish I could carry mine without risking arrest.

[jody]

4. How the person is dressed and acts affects how I react. n/t

[rrneck]

5. It would get my attention, but not much

more than that. If I saw them behaving erratically in about that time frame then they would really have my attention.

Open ended hypothetical -
I see a concealed firearm and shortly thereafter the individual carrying it got in a heated argument with someone at the store.

[madmom]

6. I personally know of someone who has had a conceal carry permit for about 5 years, the

number of times carried in those 5 years about 4. It's the option to have it if you/they think it necessary, IMO.

[spin]

8. It must be nice to wake up and know that you have to carry that day...

sure must make life easier.

If someone is going somewhere where he/she thinks a firearm is truly necessary, he/she should take a shotgun or simply not go there. (Think Doc Holiday at the OK Corral).

[madmom]

9. Well you know sometimes we have to do things we don't like/want to do!

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I must admit, I would profile.

First question, is it in a holster, or just tucked loose into a waistband?
Was the exposure threatening, or plausibly accidental?
Printing through clothing counts.

If I have reason to suspect the person is breaking the law, I will contact the police.

I have never seen anyone flash a weapon, accidentally or otherwise. I have only heard if it.

[iverglas]

10. since you ask ...

I would think that the person was a criminal. Because the odds are 99,999 to 1 that that's what s/he was.

Where I'm at,

- cops carry firearms on duty only, and they don't carry them while going about their personal business in hardware stores or anywhere else;

- private security personnel do not carry firearms, unless they are on duty and engaged in the business of transporting large sums of cash or other valuables;

- anyone else carrying a firearm is doing so illegally unless there is some hugely enormously unusual circumstance that hasn't occurred to me in which s/he would be carrying it legally (possibly a cop engaged in some operation that makes him/her highly vulnerable to harm while off duty or some such thing).

I sure do like it where I'm at, where I know immediately to call the police if I see someone promenading around in public with a firearm.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Glad you live in Canada.

[spin]

11. A holster usually means the person is homest...

A criminal often uses waistband carry so that he can throw the gun away if chased.

For example the case of Plaxico Burress (the NY Giant's football player) who was not licensed to carry a weapon in New York.

Burress' latest self-inflicted wound came after he was initially turned away from the LQ nightclub in midtown because he was packing heat, police sources said. Burress, 31, who was sporting flashy jewelry and carrying loads of cash, told club management he needed the gun to protect himself, sources said.

The mercurial Giant was waved inside the crowded Latin-themed club on Lexington Ave. about midnight. He downed several drinks, making already jittery security guards more nervous about his weapon.

As Burress was being led into a VIP area, with a drink in his hand, the gun slipped down his pants leg. He reached for the weapon, but fumbled it and it went off, sources said. The bullet tore through Burress' already injured right thigh, police said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/11/29/2008-11-29_giants_receiver_plaxico_burress_accident.html

There are many methods of carrying a weapon concealed. Carrying a weapon in a outside the waistband holster requires a lot of caution so as not to "flash" the weapon by accident.

Probably after profiling the individual and being certain that he was honest, I would carefully approach him and politely explain that he had just exposed his weapon. I might say, "Nice Glock you have there. You know you might consider your method of carry."

Inside the waistband holsters work better than outside the waistband with a long shirt or jacket. Shoulder holsters work well, especially if you feel you might need your weapon while in a car. SOB holster (small of the back) are to me a bad idea. If you fall and land on your back you can expect serious back problems in the future. (Note: voice of experience here.)

Most people who carry concealed end up with a box of holsters they have tried and discarded.

My final solution was to carry a S&W model 642 revolver in a pocket holster which I place in my front right pants pocket. It's a very light snub nosed revolver that holds five rounds of .38+P ammo. Many gun enthusiasts consider this a mouse gun and want a weapon with more power and 17 rounds. I tried to carry weapons like a .45 Colt auto or a Beretta .40 cal. It was very easy to find excuses to leave them at home when I just wanted to make a quick run to the store. The S&W revolver is real easy to carry, just grab it and the holster and stick it in your pocket. The weapon doesn't print in my pocket while it's in the holster. If you find yourself in a questionable situation, you can place your hand in your pocket on the revolver and draw and use it in an instant. Sometimes merely placing your hand in your pocket will defuse a touchy situation even without a weapon. (Voice of experience again.)

The first rule of a gunfight is to have a gun.

Of course, a snub nosed revolver has drawbacks. It's far more difficult to use effectively at long range. (Why would a civilian use a weapon at long range anyhow?) It's a hard gun to master as the recoil is significant. Practice can overcome this but it hurts.

But most people who carry a concealed weapon on a regular basis are not gun nuts looking for the opportunity to use the weapon. They avoid going to areas that are dangerous or doing stupid activities such as visiting outdoor ATMs after dark. They try to avoid confrontation and are respectful to people who probably don't deserve respect. They are honest responsible citizens which is probably why the crime rate, especially the crime rate involving firearms, is so low for concealed weapon permit holders.

[iverglas]

13. the mind boggles

I tried to carry weapons like a .45 Colt auto or a Beretta .40 cal. It was very easy to find excuses to leave them at home when I just wanted to make a quick run to the store.

The idea of needing an excuse not to take a firearm to the 7-11 ... spin? Yup. That's what my eyes are doing.

[krispos42]

18. Well, your mind boggles

Which is entirely understandable, given your intense dislike of firearms.


If it helps you understand, it's roughly analagous to not buckling your seat belt when you need to move your car from your driveway to, say the street.

[Joe Steel]

77. Are you saying....?

If it helps you understand, it's roughly analagous to not buckling your seat belt when you need to move your car from your driveway to, say the street.

Are you saying persons licensed to carry guns don't need them in every case?

How often would you say they need them? Forget about the seat belt. Would you carry a gun "to move your car from your driveway to, say the street?"

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

14. oh, and

But most people who carry a concealed weapon on a regular basis ... try to avoid confrontation and are respectful to people who probably don't deserve respect.

I guess this would be the difference between them and those who carry unconcealed firearms ... to places like children's soccer games and the local family restaurant ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. That person was just following the law.

Remember the sheriff wouldn't let her carry concealed anymore. That's what happens when you force people into a corner sometimes. They end up making a stand on principal that intolerant people are uncomfortable with.

David

[spin]

21. Why would a person carry a gun to a restaurant, watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[iverglas]

23. nah, better things to do with my 9:22

than watch that tired old chestnut tale again. Let alone waste time talking about it.

[spin]

27. I didn't think you would want to watch this video...

It doesn't really help your position and views, does it?

[iverglas]

30. I don't actually make a habit

of watching long tedious statements by Republican politicians saying something I have already heard seventy thousand times and found just as pointless each time as the first.

This woman contends that had she been permitted to haul a firearm into a family restaurant she could have saved the world. I don't have access to her crystal ball, so I don't know, myself. I do know that the police DID SHOOT the person who committed the mass murder SEVERAL TIMES but without putting him out of action. Why the Republican politician in question thinks she would have got the drop on him and succeeded where the police failed, I don't know, and I don't care to waste my time listening to her self-serving tale in case I might find out.

What I'd love to know is what she's done to make it more difficult for individuals like the one who committed that mass murder to lay hands on a handgun. Shall I listen for the crickets?

One incident in which adding yet another firearm to the mix MIGHT have prevented SOME harm (we all know people would still have died) vs. all the KNOWN harm caused when firearms have been present in situations.

I'll bet there's been a case when some unfortunate accident prevented someone from being in a plane crash later that day, or going down with the Titanic ... but I don't think I'll make a practise of falling down stairs to immunize myself against worse disasters.

[spin]

37. To be honest, I can understand your dislike...

for more weapons on the street. The more firearms in a society, obviously the more firearm related accidents and incidents will occur.

In my opinion, the best way to approach this problem is to enforce the laws we already have on the books. If we find effective ways to address the crime and illegal drug problem we will reduce the demand for firearms by honest citizens who feel they need a firearm for self defense.

Passing even more draconian gun laws without addressing the illegal guns in criminal hands merely ignores and does very little to reduce the crime and homicide problem. True, fewer firearms in the hands of honest citizens will translate into fewer gun accidents and fewer domestic murders, which is a positive. However, an increasing crime rate fed by the demand for illegal drugs contributes to a rising homicide and firearm injury rate both by the people who commit crime to obtain the drugs and by the organized gangs who profit from selling the drugs. Reported incidents of crime cause honest citizens to obtain firearms as a realistic or perceived protection from crime.

The gun laws we now have in this country have been fairly effective in limiting the purchase of new firearms to adults without a criminal background but are far from perfect. Individuals with severe mental problems have still been able to buy weapons, so we need improvement in this area. There is also the problem of straw man purchases of weapons as well as transfer of firearms between private individuals. Severe penalties for straw man purchases and increased monitoring of gun purchases might help to reduce the problem. Laws could be enacted to require private individuals who transfer firearms to go to a dealer to have a NICS check performed. Our current gun laws could be improved and tweaked to be more effective.

We can improve gun laws to a certain extent, but eventually we'll run into the law of diminishing returns. It's cheap and easy to pass laws and while they actually work to solve a problem everything is fine. Eventually we need more than mere words on paper. We need action.

I hope we start focusing our efforts on taking illegal firearms off the street and launching a coordinated effort between federal state and local law enforcement to combat criminal gangs. This approach is far more expensive than passing new laws which the criminal element will merely ignore. The expense will involve an increased police presence in the bad neighborhoods, a more efficient legal system and possibly more prisons. In many neighborhoods this effort will prove unpopular at first. We need to establish trust between the communities who are plagued by criminal violence with neighborhood police and community involvement. I've personally seen efforts in this direction. A local police officer who roomed with us devoted a lot of his personal time with efforts such as the Special Olympics and coaching sports teams which often involved minorities. He was able to establish friendship with many individuals and his effort might improve community relationships and his leadership abilities might influence some to lead a productive life. Many times people would appear at our door and ask for this police officer because they needed help or advice on problems. Since he worked the graveyard shift, it often was difficult to determine how serious the problem was. When we did decide that the request was indeed serious, and worth waking him, he was willing to sacrifice his sleep to help. Not all the police officers I've known have had the desire, background or ability to do what this officer has. My conversations with him revealed that he could have chosen to chose a far different life. He understands why and how people chose to follow a life of crime. He is an honorable and dedicated officer and the bad element in my town know when he is on duty. Unlike many other officers who are merely waiting for retirement he is willing to protect and serve.
He also believes in the Second Amendment and the right for an licensed individual to carry a firearm.

We also need to address the failure of our educational system and provide meaningful jobs that provide good wages. Perhaps we need to examine the idea of legalizing some drugs. Our "War on Drugs" needs a major overhaul as it is a farce at the best. Perhaps we need to find a way to discourage the media from glamorizing the "gangsta" lifestyle without imposing censorship.

True, if you could find a magic wand and wave it, you could eliminate all the firearms in civilian hands in the States. Obviously this works in Disney movies but not in real life. It would prove extremely difficult if not totally impossible to convince Americans to turn in their weapons. The culture in the States differs considerably from Canada, Great Britain or Australia. Firearms have been and will continue to be a part of American life. Probably the best solution is to find a means to reduce crime and homicide so that the average citizen feels little or no need to own a firearm. When I grew up in the 50's and 60's most gun owners were hunters, collectors or target shooters. We left the doors to our house unlocked at night. Any murder made banner headlines in my local newspaper for weeks.

I remember that the people at that time strongly supported the Second Amendment, most just didn't feel any need to own a firearm.

Back to your post. Could the lady in the video have stopped the madman in the restaurant? Who can say? If she did hit him once or twice some lives might have been saved. She was an honest citizen, so she didn't have a weapon with her in Texas since the laws prohibited that at the time. She was defenseless in the situation. Would improved gun control laws have prevented the massacre? Possibly as George Jo Hennard Jr., the shooter, waved many red flags before he decided to drive his pickup truck into the Luby's Cafeteria.

By the way, after he was shot by the police, he committed suicide. Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testified in front of Congress then ran as a Republican and won election to the Texas House of Representatives. She was instrumental in passing the current CCW law in Texas. It would have made little sense at the time to run as a Democrat on this issue.

It's my serious hope that in the future more Democrats will approach the issue of firearm violence in a more realistic and logical manner and find solutions which are effective and in the end will reduce the demand for firearm ownership by the average citizen who has in reality little use for lethal weapons. True the gun lobby and the NRA will find their influence diminished, but we in the United States will live in a safer and better environment.

But that time will be far in the future, if ever. Firearms are deeply ingrained in the history and the American culture. Politicians of both parties will use the gun control as a wedge issue to attract votes, similar to the birth control issue. The people we elect are all to often interested in following the party line and playing offense and defense like professional football teams. Working together to find real solutions is not often the best way to get reelected. While this is sad, history shows this to be the norm.

While the people we elect to office seem incapable of addressing the problem of crime and violence, I want the right to own a firearm for self defense. Since I qualify, (have passed the background check and all other requirements), I also want the right to carry a weapon concealed. I doubt if I ever will find myself in a situation where I will have to use a firearm and I sincerely hope I never will. I view my concealed weapon as my insurance policy, seat belt or fire extinguisher. Fortunately, I live in the United States with a simple guarantee called the Second Amendment and in Florida with state laws that allow me to carry concealed.

Canada is a far different culture with a far different history and outlook. Perhaps I'm too close to the trees to see the woods. This post is way down on the thread so few people will bother to read it. You strike me as a very intelligent person with an entirely different view. Seriously, if you had the ability, how would you address the problem of crime and violence in the States? What gun control measures would you propose?

If you decide to answer this question, remember that what you propose has to have a reasonable chance of succeeding in the States. What works in Canada or the United Kingdom may not fly here. We in the States live in what might be described as a parallel universe.

[iverglas]

38. what . does . this . mean ???

In my opinion, the best way to approach this problem is to enforce the laws we already have on the books.

It is a platitude mouthed over and over in this forum. I just do not know what it is supposed to mean.

Petty drug dealer "X" has a handgun. He uses it to protect himself from rip-offs, collect debts, intimidate his neighbours.

If he gets caught with the handgun, he is presumably in shit.

Well, yes, if anybody gets caught committing a crime, they are in shit.

What does "enforce the laws we already have on the books" mean in this instance?

Drug dealer "X" is going to get caught with a handgun if he has it with him during a drug bust, or if he shoots somebody and is apprehended with the handgun, or if his premises are searched on a warrant for some reason.

And if he goes to prison, drug dealer "Y" and his handgun are going to take his place. What has been accomplished?

If petty drug dealers were worried about going to prison, would they not have chosen a different career already?

Has the death penalty ended murder in the US yet?


If we find effective ways to address the crime and illegal drug problem we will reduce the demand for firearms by honest citizens who feel they need a firearm for self defense.

Yeah, and you'll also put an end to shoplifting and the price of goods will drop 10%.

Meanwhile, people are being killed by firearm, in the hands of the criminals and the honest citizens who feel like murdering their wives, or cleaning the things with their three-year-old within arm's reach.


Passing even more draconian gun laws without addressing the illegal guns in criminal hands merely ignores and does very little to reduce the crime and homicide problem.

What the hell is "draconian" about
- requiring that a licence be obtained in order to acquire a firearm?
- requiring that transfers of firearms be registered?
- requiring that firearms be stored safely and securely?

What "draconian" laws do you have in mind here?

I mean, I'd go with prohibit handgun possession, myself, but we all know we're not talking about that.


True, fewer firearms in the hands of honest citizens will translate into fewer gun accidents and fewer domestic murders, which is a positive.

Yes, and fewer firearm thefts, to the tune of a few 100,000 a year or whatever it is.

And fewer intentional transfers to ineligible/inappropriate persons, whether knowingly or not.


However, an increasing crime rate fed by the demand for illegal drugs contributes to a rising homicide and firearm injury rate both by the people who commit crime to obtain the drugs and by the organized gangs who profit from selling the drugs. Reported incidents of crime cause honest citizens to obtain firearms as a realistic or perceived protection from crime.

Just having to read this "honest citizen" fucking crap over and fucking over makes my eyes hurt. Orwellian doublespeak.

Easy access to firearms feeds the supply of illegal drugs.

Drug traffickers/dealers CANNOT OPERATE without firearms. And obviously we agree that the side effects of drug trafficking, in particular the violence associated with it, for individuals and communities, is as much the problem as the effects of the drugs themselves on individuals and communities.


I hope we start focusing our efforts on taking illegal firearms off the street and launching a coordinated effort between federal state and local law enforcement to combat criminal gangs.

And they will continue to steal fresh ones.

And if there were a neat way to "combat criminal gangs", someone would have come up with it. We have this problem, and we actually have organized-crime laws that (I think) are stronger than yours. It is impossible to "combat criminal gangs" without running into constitutional and evidentiary problems, other than by simply prosecuting offenders for offences, one by one by one.

This approach is far more expensive than passing new laws which the criminal element will merely ignore.

How does a CRIMINAL ignore the law that prohibits the lawful owner from transferring a firearm to him/her if s/he does not have a licence or pass a background check, and register the transfer?

When "criminals don't obey the law" is put to ME, it is a great big huge straw monster. I have NEVER focused on laws that criminals need to obey, in fact I can't think of when I have had 10 words to say about such laws.


The expense will involve an increased police presence in the bad neighborhoods, a more efficient legal system and possibly more prisons. In many neighborhoods this effort will prove unpopular at first. We need to establish trust between the communities who are plagued by criminal violence with neighborhood police and community involvement. I've personally seen efforts in this direction.

And it's what's being done in places like downtown Toronto -- except for the "more prisons" crap. Nobody but the ultra-right wing here (the Conservative party federally) buys into that, and everybody else knows we need only look south of our border to see that (a) it is a corporate money-making scheme, and (b) it is a waste of money and more a part of the problem than the solution.


We also need to address the failure of our educational system and provide meaningful jobs that provide good wages. Perhaps we need to examine the idea of legalizing some drugs.

Duh, if you'll forgive the expression.

But to imagine that organized crime will not look for and find other sources of profit, and set about exploiting them with the same level of violence, is to be naive. Of course, we could legalize all drugs, all forms of gambling and all prostitution-related activities, eliminate all excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol ... and there would still be corruption, and protection rackets. And they would still depend on access to firearms to operate.


Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testified in front of Congress then ran as a Republican and won election to the Texas House of Representatives. She was instrumental in passing the current CCW law in Texas. It would have made little sense at the time to run as a Democrat on this issue.

Well gee. If she believed in labour rights and women's rights and generally improving the public welfare and "liberal"/progressive stuff like that, it wouldn't have made much sense to run as a Republican.


The people we elect are all to often interested in following the party line and playing offense and defense like professional football teams.

Actually, the facts are quite the opposite. You have the weakest party system of any country in the advanced industrial, or whatever we might call it, class. You have no party discipline, and no requirement that people running, or elected, under a party's banner adhere to any particular agenda. Your elected representatives act like free agents when they choose, bargaining and horsetrading in your legislatures.

A more coherent party system with stricter party discipline might just produce interesting results. It could mean adjusting a party's agenda to the right when an electorate is massively right-wing, as your electorate currently is. (Never mind that "centrist" bull; what is "centre" in the US is right-wing by any minimally objective standard.) So be it, if that's the case. But while that means ditching women and the GLBT community and various other minorities most likely, it does not mean moving right on firearms, because the fact is that a majority of your electorate supports existing and greater firearms control. It does mean campaigning to that fact, and not dancing like a trained bear to the right wing's tune on the issue.


While the people we elect to office seem incapable of addressing the problem of crime and violence, I want the right to own a firearm for self defense. Since I qualify, (have passed the background check and all other requirements), I also want the right to carry a weapon concealed.

While my municipality is unable to provide me with a water park within 2 blocks of my home, I want to turn my backyard into one. Oh well.


I view my concealed weapon as my insurance policy, seat belt or fire extinguisher.

And it's a fine talking point it is.

You let me know the next time someone's insurance policy kills his/her child, or someone's seat belt is stolen and used to hold up a convenience store, or even when someone hits someone over the head with a fire extinguisher.

I view the crocodiles in the moat I'd like to dig around my house as my insurance policy against burglary. Sadly, my municipality takes a dim view of that one, too.


Canada is a far different culture with a far different history and outlook.

Ah, American Exceptionalism. The only problem is, Canada is far more different culturally from most European countries, say, than it is from the US. One really huge difference between Canada and the US is the Canadian rejection of patriarchy as the organizing principle of our society, and the rising embrace of it in the US. A real biggie, that one.

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=456


Seriously, if you had the ability, how would you address the problem of crime and violence in the States? What gun control measures would you propose?

I've posted them til I'm blue in the face, really -- always and only in response to a request.

1. mandatory licensing to acquire/possess firearms
(includes proof of successful training and appropriate background checks)

2. mandatory registration of all transfers of firearms

3. safe/secure storage legislation

The last is obviously the most difficult to "enforce", as, like most offences, it can only be enforced in the breach. Since it is directed to the law-abiding, people in lawful possession of firearms, who are presumably at least somewhat amenable to reasonable persuasion and apprehensive about the consequences of being found in violation, even if the risk of that happening is low, it is still worthwhile.

I obviously cannot imagine wanting to live in a society where anyone who is not insane or criminal may legally possess, let alone wander around with, a handgun, but that's me, and of course the huge overwhelming majority of Canadians, and Brits, and Europeans, and Australians and NZers, and most people in the world. So you get to be exceptional there. Remembering that "exceptional" really doesn't mean "better".

[spin]

42. Actually I don't find your suggestions totally unreaonable...

1. mandatory licensing to acquire/possess firearms
(includes proof of successful training and appropriate background checks)

I've often thought that if you have to get a diver's certificate for SCUBA diving, a license showing firearms training and a background check would make sense before purchasing firearms or ammo. The requirement would be similar to a CCW permit. The biggest drawback might occur in a situation where an individual felt threatened but would have to complete the course before being allowed to purchase a weapon. Possibly a letter from a police department might authorize a temporary license.

I've also encountered several people at the range who owned a firearm for self defense but were unable to determine if it was loaded. Such people are unsafe with a firearm.



2. mandatory registration of all transfers of firearms

I'm not real fond of firearm registration and Florida does not require registration. Registration can lead to confiscation or taxation. I do favor requiring that any weapons transfer involve a NICS background check. It is possible that registering firearms might help law enforcement to solve crimes, but some say that it doesn't work all that well.

Last week on WTOP radio's "Ask the Chief" program, Washington, DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier inadvertently admitted that the District's gun registration program was a failure. According to the Chief, "Honestly, there are thousands of handguns that were registered in the city and I don't know whether those handguns are still in the city." Of the 41,000 handguns registered, the police department cannot account for 36,000.

The handguns in question were registered back in 1976 when the District's near-total handgun ban became law. The law grandfathered handguns that already existed in the city, but required the owners to register them. The owners of 41,000 handguns dutifully registered the guns. Yet now, 32 years later, the District does not know where 88% of those handguns are.

************snip***************

Only one reason exists for government to require gun registration – potential gun confiscation. That scenario has already happened in California where so-called "assault weapons" were first required to be registered, then banned and confiscated. It can't happen here? It already has.

Criminals do not register guns. Felons do not register their illegally-held guns. In fact, requiring a felon to register a handgun is a Constitutional violation, since government mandated registration would require a felon to self-incriminate, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The only people who will register their guns are law-abiding citizens.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0708/0708gunreg.htm

Yes, there are holes in this argument. But nevertheless, I'm not convinced that registration is a good idea for gun owners who want to keep their legally purchased weapons.



3. safe/secure storage legislation

Several shooters I've known through the years have had their firearm collection stolen. Then they decided a gun safe was a great investment. Safe/secure storage requirements would reduced the number of illegal guns available to criminals. There are methods of storing a firearm securely but still easily accessible by the owner.

I would like to see more efforts focused on stopping criminals from carrying illegal weapons. In several cities in the States programs were initiated that targeted criminals and criminal gangs. For example:

City firearm seizures drop 25 percent

By Justin Fenton
October 4, 2008

Despite an increased emphasis on seizing illegal firearms, Baltimore police have taken about 25 percent fewer guns off the street this year and are making fewer gun arrests.

City law enforcement officials said they were unsure how to account for the decline, which has police on pace to recover far fewer illegal guns than in previous years, but were in agreement that it's probably not because there are significantly fewer guns on the streets. Instead, they said it is more likely that criminals are getting the message not to carry guns in public, which could be a factor in this year's drops in homicides and nonfatal shootings.

"The sentiment is that there is an acknowledgment amongst criminals in particular that they can't be just walking around with illegal weapons," said Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for the Police Department and Mayor Sheila Dixon. "They're still out there, but there are fewer people walking around with a gun tucked under their waistband or under the driver's seat of a car."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.guns04oct04,0,7081652.story

If we make our cities safer we can reduced the demand for firearms purchased for self defense. I remember years ago I was visiting my uncle who lived on Mt. Washington in Pittsburgh. I wanted to take my wife and daughter to Grandview Avenue which overlooks Pittsburgh and is one of the more spectacular views of a city in the States especially at night.

I asked my Uncle if it was safe to walk to the overlook at night. He replied that at one time there was a lot of crime in the area, but in the recent years the police had started walking a beat. Their increased presence had made the neighborhood safe. We enjoyed the walk and the view.




Safe cities and streets are wonderful to visit, live in and enjoy.

[iverglas]

44. continuing

I've often thought that if you have to get a diver's certificate for SCUBA diving, a license showing firearms training and a background check would make sense before purchasing firearms or ammo.

I left that part out.

Requiring the licence (or even background check, using the NICS system now used in the US) for ammunition purchases is HUGELY important.

The firearms are stolen or straw-purchased, then trafficked around -- but without the ammunition, they're useless.

This hit home in Canada in the incident I have often referred to -- when four teenaged punks stole an improperly stored firearm in a residential break-in, and then drove to the nearest Canadian Tire (automotive/sporting goods chain) and bought the bullets, and drove down the main business street of the capital city at noon hour shooting at people and things, and killed a visiting Brit engineer.

After that, the licence requirement was extended to ammunition.


Registration can lead to confiscation or taxation.

Confiscation. How's that go? Correlation != causation? Even the correlation here is weak.

Taxation. Like, a registration fee? It's a few dollars here, for 5 years, or lifetime, I dunno, and that's if they're not offering freebies. What's to tax? Don't get it.


"The handguns in question were registered back in 1976 when the District's near-total handgun ban became law. The law grandfathered handguns that already existed in the city, but required the owners to register them. The owners of 41,000 handguns dutifully registered the guns. Yet now, 32 years later, the District does not know where 88% of those handguns are."

I don't get it. Have they looked for them? Not requiring people to report changes of the address where the thing is licensed to be, that would seem odd. Would they really not be able to use something like motor vehicle registration / driver's licence records to find these people? They seem to do that stuff on Law & Order all the time.

Obviously there has to be a reporting requirement -- report change of location, report loss or theft, and register any transfer of ownership (that last is kinda the whole point). Yup, easy laws to break. But these are "law-abiding gun owners" we're talking about here, no?


So we're agreed on safe/secure storage requirements. And I'm sure we'd agree that the effect is largely instructive, since it's a difficult thing to enforce. I am all in favour of prosecutions when violations are detected -- whether or not any harm resulted. The asshole whose gun was used to kill Nicholas Battersby in Ottawa, above, was never publicly identified or prosecuted. Made me sick.


As for enforcement measures and techniques directed at the criminal element -- they tend to be expensive and only marginally effective. You take two off the street, another two take their place. There may have been a decline in illegal gun carrying in Baltimore, but I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis. I by no means disagree that such things should be treated severely, I just don't think that's the biggest, most effective or best targeted part of the solution.

Community policing, yes, always a good idea.


Pittsburgh ... best viewed at night?

;)

[spin]

46. continuing...

Using the NICS system to purchase ammo would probably overload it. A photo ID firearm license might work, of course it is possible that the license might have been revoked. (Which is why, If I purchase a firearm I still go through the NICS check. My concealed carry permit allows me to to take the weapon home without a waiting period.)

Years and years ago I remember a requirement to show a drivers license before purchasing any ammo which could be fired from a handgun. The clerk would write down my name and the license number and a few other items in a huge log book. The program killed a lot of trees but caught few if any criminals.

I'm not sure what the problem was with the DC registration program, but it definitely was poorly thought out to be such a failure.

No, I'm not suggesting that targeting criminals who carry illegal weapons on the street is a one size fits all solution to crime. However, if the criminals are reluctant to wonder around the city always carrying their piece, there will be fewer violent firearm confrontations between criminals because one "disrespected" the other. Since criminals are normally not good shooters, (they like to do things like ignore the sights by holding the weapon sideways) fewer innocent bystanders will be shot. Of course, if they are engaged in criminal activity they will probably carry the weapon. Delivering drugs and money can be a dangerous enterprise.

The view of Pittsburgh from Grandview Avenue is also impressive during the day. I am more of a creature of the night, so I prefer the night view.

[iverglas]

55. and

Using the NICS system to purchase ammo would probably overload it.
My concealed carry permit allows me to to take the weapon home without a waiting period.

Those are some reasons why licensing is a better idea than background checks at point of purchase. ;)

No waiting here in Canada. Once you have the licence, you buy cash & carry.


Here. The view of Parliament Hill in Canada's capital on this fine Canadian winter day.

http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/text/hillcam_e.html

Webcam - I imagine it will be nicer this evening when the Christmas lights are on.

Tried to find a webcam from the CN Tower but all I can find is traffic on the 401 ...

A still:



I did that once. I was young and foolish, and the Australian TV cameraman who wanted to go up resembled a Peter O'Toole - cute BeeGee hybrid. It would take something even better to get me to do it again.

[iverglas]

57. and with that --

Merry Christmas to all

and to all a Good Night!

[spin]

59. Merry Christmas back (n/t)

[iverglas]

60. dang

those forbidden images ... I'll try another:



!

[Joe Steel]

78. I almost never watch linked video.

I almost never watch linked video but, for some reason, I clicked on that one. When I saw the name, Suzanna whatever, I remembered why I don't watch linked video.

[AlinPA]

66. Why hide the gun? If you have a permit, why not show the gun?

[ManiacJoe]

68. Bad tactics.

The element of surprise is an excellent thing to have on your side.

There are two schools of thought on open carry: (1) The Bad Guys leave you alone because they see you can fight back. (2) The Bad Guys shoot you first as you present the biggest threat to them.

[AlinPA]

69. I just think carrying a gun on your hip is a good preventative measure.

Very few people would mess with you or the public around you.

[lotus]

12. Just a bit embarrassed for him

I wouldn't think much of it and certainly wouldn't do anything in response, but I would feel a bit embarrassed for him accidentally exposing his gun. Around here (MA), we can get in big trouble if someone sees your concealed carry become accidentally exposed. In addition to possible arrest and charges, that also can mean revocation of LTC card. So all I might think is "oops crap I hope no one else saw that".

I only pocket carry (.38 snubbie with Crimson Trace laser grips) so risk of exposure is small, other than the bulge in my pants pocket. No one ever notices, and I don't think they'll expect I'm just happy to see them either (bulge isn't centralized enough). Even then, I'm usually not carrying anyway... mainly for walks in the woods where I'd be screwed if anyone decided to do something.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

19. I laugh quietly to myself

It happens fairly often in my neighborhood, in spite of the difficulty of obtaining a permit. Some people just don't know how to accessorize - They dress in styles that do not lend themselves to effective concealment.

Proper attire for a man carrying a concealed weapon in warm weather is a Hawaiian shirt and jeans or cargo pants.

[spin]

22. A Hawaiian shirt is a give away that you might be carrying...

as is a photographer's vest without a camera, or a very sturdy fanny pack aka "fag bag". On the other hand these methods of dress do effectively conceal a firearm. The average person is usually so involved in his own world that he doesn't care about or notice obvious signs that a another individual is carrying a weapon. Those who are more alert to their surroundings notice a lot.

Probably the best method of dress for concealment is the loose fitting clothing of urban youth. Unfortunately I'm a bit old for that style.

[iverglas]

24. excuse me?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fag%20bag

1. fag bag

A derogatory term used by men to describe a carry-all bag held by another man. It seems as though a man's sense of manliness is enhanced only by accusing other men of being sissies. Gunslingers wore purses, no one is accusing them of being siisyboys.
"Hey, you, sissyboy! Nice fag bag you got there!"
"BLAM!!!! One less small-minded jerk in the world!"

How apt.

2. fag bag

Slang word used to described what is also a called a "fanny pack". It's a small, purse-like container that zippers shut and is worn around one's waist. They came into popularity first with runners and other exercise enthusiasts, but when they crossed into main stream, there was a backlash because men starting using them much like a woman would use a purse - as a convenient place to carry things around in. Because men in traditional society have never been able to carry any such thing (except the cumbersome and often unneccisarily large briefcase), wearing a fanny-pack became viewed as effeminate behavior. So "real" men refused to start using them (although they are very practical) and need to keep up their masculine image. Therefore, the best they could do was to equate their use with being homosexual, although most of the men who actually wore them were just "unfashionalbe" married men.

How ... surprising ... to see the term used here.

Never heard it before, myself. What a sheltered life I live, surrounded by reasonable, decent people who would never think of using terms like that ...

[spin]

26. I actually first heard the term...

from a retired police officer who is the range master at the pistol range I used to haunt. Cops have their own form of humor as do many other professions such as nurses, doctors and the military.

The retired officer actually carried his concealed weapon in his "fag bag". The term didn't bother him in the least. And no, he wasn't gay. He does however have a good sense of humor, (in my opinion).

Obviously, I do associate with a broader and far different group of people then you.

[iverglas]

29. uh

The term didn't bother him in the least. And no, he wasn't gay.

Maybe if I read that a few hundred more times, I'll take whatever meaning you were intending to convey.

I imagine there are a lot of terms referring to vulnerable minority groups that don't bother people who aren't members of that group.

[spin]

39. Understanding cop humor might take some effort...

a few examples:

[iverglas]

40. nah

Black humour is one thing, and I'm rather a big fan of it myself.

You'll understand that, say, cartoons of African-Americans eating watermelon aren't "black humour". HAHAHA.

Neither is the use of terms like "fag" in the context we are in.

I'll grant that there might have been an element of self-deprecating humour in it, if there in fact was, obviously. Not especially funny still.

Now I'm going to butt out my own fag and go home for the pork butt roast dinner I prepared yesterday.

[spin]

41. Have a good meal (n/t)

[Howzit]

20. If I didn't feel nervous or threatened by this person before noticing the piece

I would not feel nervous after. If they seemed dicey, the gun would add to my alert.

[Abq_Sarah]

25. I don't even think twice about it.

We also have open carry here so it's not a big deal. People don't throw up their hands and shriek like little girls when they see firearms.

I can generally tell when someone is carrying anyway.

[spin]

28. Welcome to DU

[Abq_Sarah]

33. Thank you

:)

[iverglas]

31. yes, we can always use a little more

shriek like little girls

of that charming ... chivalry, is it?

[Abq_Sarah]

32. As a woman

I reserve the right to make that characterization.

I'm 45 years old, served in the military, own my own business and I have been a firearms owner for the last 25 years. I am also a certified firearms instructor. I teach both men and women how to properly operate pistols, shotguns and rifles. They are taught the laws of my state and they are taught methods of non violent confrontation because when you take on the responsibility of carrying a weapon, you have a special responsibility to ensure that weapon is NOT drawn unless your life or the lives of people around you are in eminent danger. Properly trained firearms owners are less likely to start a fight and more likely to walk away from one because we don't let our egos get in the way of common sense.

[iverglas]

34. as a woman

I don't give a crap.

Ask Firethingy Dave how he feels about it.

As for the rest: yada yada. Nothing to do with anything I said.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. A personal attack when I'm not even involved, I must be winning you over.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Let me just say how nice it is to have you here.

[8Kilo1]

43. Insecure Person

..is what I think. Someone who lives their life in a perpetual state of fear and/or insecurity. A lack of self-esteem. Generally, the folks carrying are socially and professionally underdeveloped.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Very low opinion of police officers, that's a shame.

Most of the officers I know are pretty good guys.

David

[8Kilo1]

48. Unserious Answer by Dave

We require our police and law enforcement officers to often insert themselves directly into hostile and dangerous situations. That's why they carry firearms. They are also trained in the use of those firearms as well as the law. They are screened in terms of drug use, mental health, physical fitness, criminal record and the like. They are annually evaluated for their fitness and competency.

Not so for Joe Sixpack.

Kindly try and make rational arguments, Dave.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Maybe you could shed some light on how you differentiate between Joe Sixpack and an off duty cop.

[iverglas]

52. how many times?

Obviously, I don't know why off-duty cops should be toting firearms around town any more than anyone else. (I asked the co-vivant last night whether he'd ever heard of such a thing, and the idea horrified him as much as me. Where we're at, cops is people, their firearms are equipment used in their employment, and they turn them in at the end of the shift. Period.)

But let's just summarize what 8kilo1 said in the previous post:

PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.

If a cop is required to perform duties of his/her position while not on duty, as it seems cops are where you're at, then s/he is still a cop and still subject to public oversight at all relevant times.

If you don't think cops should have exemptions from the rules that apply to other people when it comes to carrying firearms when not on duty (which would of course also mean that when a cop is off duty, s/he is off duty, and not required to perform any law enforcement-type services), then by all means try to do something about it. If I were where you are, you'd certainly get no argument from me.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Let's start at the beginning.

Here is my orginal post, "What do you think when you see......
a firearm that was being carried concealed but for some reason became exposed? and What do you do when that happens?

There have been a few instances when I have seen someone carrying a firearm in a holster in a grocery store, home improvement store, construction site, etc. Nothing intentional someone reaching for something on a high shelf, loading something into a trunk, etc. I normally just assume that they have a permit or are an off duty cop, I was just curious what other people think."

Please notice I specifically mention off duty cops.


Here is kilos response, "Insecure Person
..is what I think. Someone who lives their life in a perpetual state of fear and/or insecurity. A lack of self-esteem. Generally, the folks carrying are socially and professionally underdeveloped."


To which i responded, "Very low opinion of police officers, that's a shame.
Most of the officers I know are pretty good guys."


Then kilo responds as if I'm talking about cops in uniform by saying, "Unserious Answer by Dave
We require our police and law enforcement officers to often insert themselves directly into hostile and dangerous situations. That's why they carry firearms. They are also trained in the use of those firearms as well as the law. They are screened in terms of drug use, mental health, physical fitness, criminal record and the like. They are annually evaluated for their fitness and competency.

Not so for Joe Sixpack.

Kindly try and make rational arguments, Dave."


To which I responded, "Maybe you could shed some light on how you differentiate between Joe Sixpack and an off duty cop."


It seems like a perfectly rational question to ask someone who judges everyone they see carrying a firearm that isn't wearing a uniform as an "Insecure Person..is what I think. Someone who lives their life in a perpetual state of fear and/or insecurity. A lack of self-esteem. Generally, the folks carrying are socially and professionally underdeveloped."

David

[iverglas]

54. Dave is Everyman

*You* say that you think "off-duty cop".

You asked what *other* people think. What *you* think does not determine what other people think when they see someone wearing a firearm in public, and most definitely does not determine what other people think about cops.

I don't know why *you* would "normally" think "off-duty cop" when apparently there are brazillions of regular folks wandering the streets and hardware stores wearing firearms. But that's *you*. It isn't anyone else. And I have no idea why an off-duty cop would be more likely to be wearing a firearm in public than anyone else in the first place, so why you would "normally" think that remains a mystery to me. But in any event, that's you. No one else.

You did not ask what other people thought when they saw an off-duty cop wearing a firearm in public.

So you may not associate anyone else's thoughts with off-duty cops, or your thoughts thereon.

This is pretty simple, really. Is it really that unclear to you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. I wouldn't expect you to think off duty cop.

I also wouldn't expect a Canadian to be as active as you on a board about foreign politics. I'm sure most people are aware that in the United States most off duty police officers carry concealed firearms. Of course you could always let kilo answer for herself.

David

[HillWilliam]

47. In my home county, not a big deal

Our sheriff's office is understaffed and the county is very rural. A lot of the population have CCH permits and a lot of us carry. The CCH courses are taught by the sheriff's office, so they know us and we know them. We know who belongs here and look out for each other. Plus, a lot of folks hunt. We abide the law and the crime rate is next to nothing. It's just not a big deal if we see a firearm.

As for "fag bag" upthread, save the outrage. We call it that, too :)

[oneshooter]

49. I would tell

the person that he/she was printing. In Texas the law allows for "accidental exposure" of a concealed firearm. That is if your cover shirt blows open in the wind, the firearm is exposed while reaching for something, ect..
I have been "outed" twice in the last 5 years. Once when a off duty officer bumped into me at a restaurant, it was crowded and he badged me and asked me if I was carrying. I replied yes, and showed him my permit. His reply was that he "Didn't like it, but it was legal." Some law enforcement officials don't like the law!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

50. oh no, paco -- a cop who doesn't think

that people promenading around in public festooned in firearms is A GOOD THING??

I thought it was only the cop bosses who thought such things, and the regular joe cops all thought it was a most excellent idea for all those "honest citizens" to arm themselves to the teeth whenever they went to the local fast food outlet.

Must bookmark this one ...

[oneshooter]

56. He was HPD

And some of them are "big city cops" that believe that they are the right hand of God. Also I was not "festooned with guns" as you have stated. I carried only my SIG 220 and a pocket knife. My Loving Wife carried her Colt LW Commander, and it wasn't a "fast food outlet" but a very nice local Italian restaurant.

Please ask for clarification before assuming anything. I realize that living in Canada ya'll are used to being subjects and not citizens.

Merry Christmas to all!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

58. I keep telling you

We aren't subjects, we're objects.


I do realize that living in the US, you are likely to be ignorant of most things in the world, but remember -- you have Google now. No need to make yourself look this foolish in public.

Somehow, being wished a Merry Christmas by someone who either ignores what s/he knows or hasn't the decency to find out and chooses instead to issue gratuitous and really dumb insults ... well, not much interested.

[HillWilliam]

62. Within the county, a polite word

would be enough. Outside the county, the situation indeed changes. It really depends on who and where. As one poster said upthread, like it or not I'd do some profiling. If it were an older person, I'd give them a gentle word. What I'd do if it were someone else, somewhere else is, well, there are a hundred other variables. I'm no badass or hero, either one. A lot of times when I'm out in public, I'm wearing a Roman collar and that's zero protection. Bad guys don't respect that at all, Smith and Wesson only slightly more. I'd always rather avoid confrontation if I can.

There are a very few places in NC where LEOs might be a bit persnickity; the sheriff's officer who gave our course indicated that "perhaps" some of the newest rookie-troopers might not yet understand the law fully. Me, I carry a copy of the NCDOJ publication in a binder along with the NC marriage law (I'm also a wedding officiant) and the NC Wildlife publication with all the hunting regulations. I actually read the things and can quote chapter and verse. (If you're going to carry or hunt, y'ought to.) While it never, ever does to argue with LEOs, it does one well to be prepared and have your stuff together. When I transport for target practice, my lockbox sits in the back right on top of the binder well-marked NC DOJ and Wildlife Publications.

Additionally, we have open carry here with a few very reasonable restrictions. Again, the office who taught our course made sure to mention that several times. Now, a LEO might ask you why you have one on, and (s)he might ask you to put it away properly. During hunting season and certainly around ranges you see folks with holsters openly carrying. Again, it's not that big a deal. But if you're supposed to be concealing, you should be concealing -- that's kinda the pernt. But if you have a pistol openly on the seat beside you qoute-unquote "in full view of the public" then that abides the law. If there's so much as a sheet of paper half-way concealing it, though, you'd best to have your permit.

Try to settle questions before they're asked, including carrying properly. As with all things, proper performance is more than half the art.

BTW, say hello to Texas for me. It has been home to me three times. If I ever had to leave NC again (doubtful, I'm settled back to home now, but if I did), Texas is probably where I'd go.

[AlinPA]

65. Why hide the gun? You have a permit, right?

[Howzit]

70. It immediately becomes an attractive nuisance

The bad guys will see it and may have enough time and the inclination to figure a way to take it from you if you carry it openly.

[AlinPA]

71. I can't buy that. I see it as a prevention; 1st for yourself and 2nd for the public around you.

[ManiacJoe]

72. Concealed carry works the exact same way

without giving up the element of surprise.

With open carry, some Bad Guys will see your gun as a deterrent and move on to less risky targets while other Bad Guys will see you as a threat who needs to be removed first before they continue with their crimes. Since there is no way to judge which group of Bad Guys you live/work near, you need to guess for yourself.

[DeadEyeDyck]

63. I pack and in Ga, I can also carry open...

I live in Fl but on the Ga state line. In Ga. I can carry open. If I am concealing, I cannot "flash". That is considered assualt. But I have walked into Walmart and BOA, carrying open and nobody cared.

[AlinPA]

64. No problem. Why don't people carry them out in the open in a holster?

Why hide them?

[iverglas]

73. you really seem to be failing to grasp the concept

In many jurisdictions, openly carrying a weapon is not permitted, by law.

In many of those jurisdictions, a permit may be obtained to carry a CONCEALED weapon.

The permit is to carry it CONCEALED, not UNconcealed.

So the reason people in those jurisdictions do not "carry them out in the open in a holster" is quite plainly because it would be ILLEGAL to do so.

Perhaps this answers the question you have thought it necessary to ask more times than enough here.

[AlinPA]

80. Thanks. To me, hiding them is worse than keeping them out so everyone can see them.

Laws are just plain stupid- encouraging people to hide their guns, and creating more suspicion.

[ManiacJoe]

82. Why does it create more suspicion...

... if you cannot see it?

[AlinPA]

84. This thread started about hidden guns being exposed. That's where I'm talking about suspicion.

You don't know if it's a policeman, an OK person w/a legal permit or a illegal hidden weapon.

[ManiacJoe]

87. Good point regarding the OP.

I have never been in the situation of seeing another's exposed gun, but if I was I would check to see if it was in a holster or not. Most Good Guys use holsters. I have been told that most Bad Guys do not use holsters because they are not easy to discard in a hurry and most Bad Guys are prohibited from having guns in the first place and having an empty holster would be evidence of recent gun possession.

[AlinPA]

88. You never know, but when I see a holstered gun out in the open, I don't

worry. I don't know the state(s), but I have seen people fishing, and even walking on the street with guns in holsters (Wyoming, Montana?). Not sure. I went fishing with a guy who carried a 22 in a holster in PA for rattlesnakes.

[Joe Steel]

67. I think society is crumbling.

What do you think when you see......

a firearm that was being carried concealed but for some reason became exposed? and What do you do when that happens?

I think society is crumbling.

[iverglas]

74. first prize goes to

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. The obviously paranoid poster.

[Joe Steel]

76. Me?

The obviously paranoid poster.

Me?

I'm not the one who thinks I need a gun to go to the grocery store.

[rrneck]

79. That depends on

where the grocery store is and who is in it. Fortunately, there aren't many of them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Who are you accusing of that?

[Joe Steel]

83. Accusing of what?

Who are you accusing of that?

Accusing of what? Taking a gun in a grocery store?

The guy who exposed his gun.

Frankly, I don't recall if it was in a grocery store or some other market. Whatever.

The point is, American streets are not so dangerous, the common citizen needs a gun to have a fair chance of returning from his errand. Nevertheless, the gun cult has painted a terrifying picture of modern life; gangs, terrorists and assailants everywhere and nothing between them and the citizen but his gun and his sacred duty to keep the streets safe.

Sadly, too many have bought the snake-oil.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Who are you accusing of thinking they need a gun to go to the grocery store?

[spin]

89. And what would exactly be wrong with carrying a weapon to the grocery store?

When I lived in Tampa, I always carried my weapon when going to the store or to a restaurant. I also know a number of shooters with concealed carry permits who did the same thing.

Probably most people who have permits rarely carry. Too many chose a heavy large caliber weapon for their carry piece, they find that putting a holster on takes time and the weapon is, to say the least, uncomfortable to haul around. A large heavy weapon requires a good belt a good holster and proper clothing to conceal it. In warm states like Florida wearing concealment clothing like a photographers vest can be a give away that you are carrying. Most of my friends who carried picked lighter firearms and placed them in their pants pocket inside a pocket holster. You head out to the store and you grab you wallet and weapon and drop both into you pants pockets. A few carried their weapon in a fanny bag (aka fag bag), but an experienced person will immediately recognize the rig as a gun bag. (Note, the term fag bag is a common police term. Police have their own odd sense of humor.)

I never carried a weapon because I was paranoid and expected problems. I never carried a weapon because I thought I was a vigilante. I avoided going places where I might have a reason to carry a weapon.

I personally like a S&W airweight .38 special model 642 as a carry weapon. It's very light and easy to carry and while some will call it a mouse gun, it's a good choice for concealed carry. If I really thought I might face a serious encounter, I would take the time to strap on a .45 auto.

But you might go to what you consider a perfectly safe place and find yourself in danger. Stores do get robbed by violent criminals and parking lots can always be dangerous. You just might be in the right place at the wrong time. I don't have any psychic ability. It would be nice if when I first logged on my computer in the morning a reminder would pop up to tell me to carry that day as I would need the weapon. Alas, no such program exists.

For those of you who feel I'm a complete nut watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiz__JEcpzA

[raimius]

86. America is not that dangerous.

Violent actions are thankfully rare and localized. However, those caught in bad situations can be royally out of luck if they are not somewhat prepared. That preparation doesn't necessarily need to be a firearm (although, that would be my choice in a self-defense scenario).

I know random, violent attacks are rare. However, I knew a person who was the victim of such a crime. The statistics are great, unless you find yourself or someone you care about in the "exception" category. I do tend to prepare for unlikely eventualities. My car has supplies and tools to survive for several days (blizzard/crash preparation). I keep a fairly sizable "rainy day" fund. Part of the reason I purchased an AR-15 in October was to ensure I could purchase one at a reasonable price (turned out to be a fairly smart move, as similar rifles have increased about 40% in price, since then).

To the OP:
Since the state I live in has CCW laws, I would likely think "decent CCWer" or "Cop" (assuming non-"gangsta" dress and non-threatening demeanor). If I saw a person accidentally expose a firearm and they were dressed "gangsta" style or seemed at all threatening, I would immediately leave and call the authorities.
(Yes, I visually profile based on dress and appearance. It has a high success rate for keeping me out of trouble. 100%)

[iverglas]

91. uh huh

I would likely think "decent CCWer" or "Cop" (assuming non-"gangsta" dress and non-threatening demeanor). If I saw a person accidentally expose a firearm and they were dressed "gangsta" style or seemed at all threatening, I would immediately leave and call the authorities.
(Yes, I visually profile based on dress and appearance. It has a high success rate for keeping me out of trouble. 100%)

Interesting word, that "gangsta".

Carries no racial/ethnic overtones at all, does it?

Sure hope you don't get held up at gunpoint by some white boy some day, while you're busy profiling the "gangstas". Eh?

[iverglas]

90. good lord

The conversation that ensued from this post is almost unbelievable.

Joe: I'm not the one who thinks I need a gun to go to the grocery store.

Dave: Who are you accusing of that?

Joe: Accusing of what? Taking a gun in a grocery store?
The guy who exposed his gun.
Frankly, I don't recall if it was in a grocery store or some other market. Whatever.
(Remember what the thread is about, Dave? You started it. It was about somebody in a hardware store with a gun attached to his body.)

Dave: Who are you accusing of thinking they need a gun to go to the grocery store?
(Do you read the posts and not just the headers, Dave?)

spin jumps in and demands of Dave: And what would exactly be wrong with carrying a weapon to the grocery store?
(I dunno, spin; did Dave say something was wrong with it? But you may have a point: what was Dave's point??)


And the head spins.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. I just asked who Joe was speaking of specifically.

Since my original post was about a wide variety of people including police officers, concealed carry permit holders and possibly criminals, I doesn't seem odd to ask whom Joe was speaking about specifically.

David

[L0oniX]

94. Doesn't bother me at all ...I rather like it unless it's a dude with a ski mask on.