• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Going to GA- Bring your gun to the airport!

Wrangor said:
I just received this email this past weekend from a friend of mine who carries.

"Guys, Delta Defense posted last week that they are running a special on their one day skills training class. For a group of ten or more they will do it for $200 a person plus ammo. It is normally $500 a person.

I know me and Kent are in. Is anyone else interested in taking the class? It is about 500 or more rounds and is a must take class for anyone who is or wants to carry a pistol and know how to correctly use them in different situations. "

I know it is probably hopeless to present people who carry weapons as non crazy, but it is a very real possibility. These are people I know who are very responsible with their ownership, and take liberty with carrying a weapon at their leisure. I think this thread has run its course, so I think this is a good last post. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. In order to revoke that right an immediate threat to the general well being must be presented. No one on this thread has presented anything other than conjectures and platitudes (despite RJ's overwhelming evidence...not even going down that rabbit hole).

The reality is that the statistics (feel free to look them up. A simple google search will give you all you need) don't support conceal and carry increasing the threat of violence to the public, and in fact there are plenty of studies (cited gleefully by the NRA) that show modest decreases in violent gun crimes. I would hazard to say that the evidence is inconclusive either way and that both sides are shading results to their POV. Either way you look at it, the evidence is inconclusive on this issue, and that is not a compelling argument to revoke a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

The Newton mother was, by all reports, a very responsible gun owner too. Up until the point, of course, she allowed her guns to be use to kill 26 people, most of them children.
 
Wrangor is slowing sliding the scale from "people who open carry in airports are crazy" to "you people are intolerant of anybody who owns a gun."
 
Wrangor said:
At least you admit (even in a roundabout way) that you have no evidence for your stance. Instead you hope for a mass shooting to prove you are right. That is excellent.
Click to expand...

You are not understanding my point. You are asking for evidence, not me. I am just telling you what evidence to support your claim that we need open carry in an airport actually looks like and why, thank both of our lords, we don't have that much of it.

My stance is that anything that makes it harder for law enforcement and national security to do their jobs is an objectively bad thing. Open carry in an airport is just that. A fundamental consideration of living in a community of others, IMO, is to balance the personal assertion of rights with a consideration of others' safety, happiness, and rights. The orthodox constitutionalists that are advocating for open carry in public spaces are pretty awful citizens, IMO.
 
Strickland, I gave him specific evidence of concealed carry didn't stop two massacres in spite of people having concealed weapons at the venues.

He ignored the evidence and hasn't shown a single mass shooting that was stopped by a citizen with a weapon.

He won't address this directly.

It's just like when he picks bible passages that support his opinion of gays and uses them to justify his positions. But he won't discuss Bible quotations that directly mention slavery and even give the OK for fathers to sell their daughters into slavery.
 
"Concealed carry is not allowed in a school, courthouse, police station, detention facility, government meeting place, polling place, establishment primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages, athletic event, parade or demonstration for which a permit is required, passenger terminal of an airport, "place of nuisance" as defined in Mississippi Code section 95–3–1."

I'm questioning how the people, the responsible gun owners, who are licensed and trained to concealed carry can't do that in the places listed above, but if the gun is in a holster in plain view then you don't need a license or training and you are allowed to bring a firearm to these same locations.
 
I mean, why should I have to take my tools off when I go to court or a police station.
 
Define "tools," and Caturday doesn't count.
 
I think this thread gets at a fundamental disagreement between the two sides. In the same exact scenario (more guns carried by more people in more public places) the sentiment is at loggerheads. One side feels less safe, the other feels more safe.

I know for me personally I believe in responsible gun ownership. I think this bill is attacking the straw man of government trying to entirely take gun rights away. It's expanding the rights of a group of people whose rights have not been infringed upon. Interesting that the same group typically is against expanding rights to those who have been restricted their whole lives. Bizarre persecution complex, and inGeorgia, they're trying to blast their way out.
 
If I'm in the great state of Florida and see someone open carrying can I stand my ground and shot that person because I perceive them as a threat?
 
Strickland33 said:
You are not understanding my point. You are asking for evidence, not me. I am just telling you what evidence to support your claim that we need open carry in an airport actually looks like and why, thank both of our lords, we don't have that much of it.

My stance is that anything that makes it harder for law enforcement and national security to do their jobs is an objectively bad thing. Open carry in an airport is just that. A fundamental consideration of living in a community of others, IMO, is to balance the personal assertion of rights with a consideration of others' safety, happiness, and rights. The orthodox constitutionalists that are advocating for open carry in public spaces are pretty awful citizens, IMO.
Click to expand...

Please clarify. I would say there are lots of things that make law enforcement and national security more difficult that are good. Very good, in fact.
 
ONW said:
If I'm in the great state of Florida and see someone open carrying can I stand my ground and shot that person because I perceive them as a threat?
Click to expand...

Is the person black?
 
TownieDeac said:
I think this thread gets at a fundamental disagreement between the two sides. In the same exact scenario (more guns carried by more people in more public places) the sentiment is at loggerheads. One side feels less safe, the other feels more safe.
Click to expand...

Good point. If you're in a restaurant, see a stranger packing heat, and feel safer than you did a moment earlier, then there is no counterargument to that.
 
DeacinBama said:
Please clarify. I would say there are lots of things that make law enforcement and national security more difficult that are good. Very good, in fact.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified that I was referring primarily to issues in public space. Specifically, not being able to read minds and distinguish the good guys with a gun from the bad guys with a gun is a serious problem. Likewise, individuals, particularly other good guys or good guys with a gun cannot make this distinction, either, which results in a situation where a lot of good guys with and without guns, and with the best intentions, are put in a potential position to make hypothetical decisions they are not trained to make (in terms of perception or execution) on behalf of people they are not tasked with protecting. This doesn't even get into the true wtf moment of whether these hypotheticals are even legal (they're not) and why, when citizens pay for law enforcement to legally enforce the law, we believe that we need (and are entitled by the constitution to) a gang of pseudo-vigilantes, lacking oversight and accountability, professional standards, or expertise in training to protect us.

Additionally, open carry is not the only threat to the efficacy of law enforcement and national security. Issues such as racial profiling, compstat/administrative quotas, and other forms of politicking also get in the way of doing the necessary work of keeping "us" safe.

I get what townie is saying and I understand that it's important to protect and push the limits of constitutional rights (and, for all I care, gun nuts can have personal armories and multi-orifice gun orgies in the privacy of their own home and on their own property), but this recent decision to push the issue in public space and around innocent people strikes me as completely irresponsible, unfair to other citizens, and a disgrace to the cause of gun rights and ownership advocacy in America.
 
He and Kent sound like tools, and he would be better-served taking a writing class.
 
I'm sure the Supreme Court will allow guns in all courts but theirs.
 
RJKarl said:
But we do have proof that have concealed carry doesn't stop attacks. One of the people at the Gabby Giffords shooting was concealed carrying and he has said that he didn't consider pulling out his gun, because it was too dangerous.

They have concealed carry in CO. That didn't stop the Aurora shooting.

We have defined evidence that two major mass shootings were not stopped by concealed carry.

You have yet to show us a single mass shooting in the US that was stopped due to someone carrying a concealed weapon.

It's you who has no evidence.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
 
Yesterday this thread was next to the PCUSA thread, and I read this one "Going GAY, bring your gun to the airport!" That would be an entirely different thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top