5year old shot with dads gun

[Skans]

You need people with a bunch of common sense.

Ha ha ha! Been to a large gun show lately???

[reynolds357]

Ha ha ha! Been to a large gun show lately??

Have not been to one in years. There was no shortage of idiots then and sure it's worse now. So, is the left correct about the "armed citizen"?

[Skans]

Have not been to one in years. There was no shortage of idiots then and sure it's worse now. So, is the left correct about the "armed citizen"?

Generally, no. But, the "armed citizen" does not normally pull out his loaded gun everywhere he goes handing it to others to show it off. However, that is exactly what happens at gun shows. People are constantly handling guns.

If 1000's of people could CC with loaded firearms at a gun show, drawing the firearm from concealment and then handing it to another to look at, consider purchasing it, or whatever, you would have ND's all over the place. Heck, ND's happen (albeit rarely) at gun shows even with all of the precautions to make sure no one is carrying a loaded firearm! Gun show attendees are simply in a different mindset when they are surrounded by thousands of guns, ammo, etc. Where a person would normally be careful about the one gun he is carrying, never even think of letting someone look at it; that's just not how it goes at gun shows, or to a lesser extent gun stores.

Other things that are bad ideas:
Smoking while pumping gas (or reloading ammo)
Drinking alcohol while operating heavy machinery
Riding in an airplane piloted by a diabetic.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with someone pumping gas, smoking (if they so desire), drinking alcohol, operating heavy machinery, being an airline passenger or being a diabetic, various combinations of these things is problematic.

[44 AMP]

So, if a "no loaded guns" sign is hypocrisy, and supports the goals and talking points of the anti-gun zealots, what about those "NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE signs???

is a NO SHIRT sign hypocrisy because it doesn't allow you to bare arms??

I think you are missing the small point that your right to do what you want, when you want, where you want, ENDS at my property line.

All our Constitutionally enumerated rights are a contract between we, the people, and the government. NOT between we the people, and we, the people.

Businesses open to the public do have certain rules they must follow, under law, but within those limits, they can, and do add what ever rules they desire.

Our right to free speech allows you to make any kind of political statement you wish, without the government legally being able to stop you. But, I can stop you from doing it on my property, if I wish. If you work for me, I can stop you from doing it on my time, as well. This is not hypocrisy, it is property owner's rights. And property owner's rights, beat individual rights, on their property. Off our property, we have the same rights, but "my house, my rules" is still the basic principle.

If you don't like my rules, take yourself elsewhere. You are free to do that, as, am I.

[reynolds357]

So, if a "no loaded guns" sign is hypocrisy, and supports the goals and talking points of the anti-gun zealots, what about those "NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE signs???

is a NO SHIRT sign hypocrisy because it doesn't allow you to bare arms??

I think you are missing the small point that your right to do what you want, when you want, where you want, ENDS at my property line.

All our Constitutionally enumerated rights are a contract between we, the people, and the government. NOT between we the people, and we, the people.

Businesses open to the public do have certain rules they must follow, under law, but within those limits, they can, and do add what ever rules they desire.

Our right to free speech allows you to make any kind of political statement you wish, without the government legally being able to stop you. But, I can stop you from doing it on my property, if I wish. If you work for me, I can stop you from doing it on my time, as well. This is not hypocrisy, it is property owner's rights. And property owner's rights, beat individual rights, on their property. Off our property, we have the same rights, but "my house, my rules" is still the basic principle.

If you don't like my rules, take yourself elsewhere. You are free to do that, as, am I.
__________________

This discussion is about taking business elsewhere. There are people taking business elsewhere due to industry hypocrisy. I make a conscious decision not to trade with shops who restrict the freedoms of the citizen to be armed.
For the record, I rarely ever carry. It's 100% about principle, consistency, and coherence of logic.

[kmw1954]

Seems we have an agreement.
Owner is free to impose rules, "My house, My rules"
Customers are free to say I don't like your rules so I'm going somewhere else.

Just like a company I once worked for. They gave us as a benefit 6 paid holidays, only thing was that you didn't get them off! In 7 years there I had one 4th of July off, 3 Thanksgivings, 3 Christmas and 3 New Years. and most of those were because they fell on my normal day off.

[JohnKSa]

Throw Tom Fatfinger out of your store. When I was SWAT commander, I had a rule that me and the Chief clashed on a few times. I always won. My rule was "The SWAT team is idiot proof because I throw all idiots off the team." You don't need a bunch of rules. You need people with a bunch of common sense.

If you can figure out in advance who is going to have an ND and screen people as they come in the door of a gun show or gun shop, that might be a practical solution. So far no one has a solution like that.

A SWAT team is a fairly elite group of people--I think you would agree that a random sampling of people at a gun show would not be at all similar to a random sampling of SWAT team members.

I agree that if we could easily screen for idiots and people lacking common sense that this topic would be a lot simpler. But that's just not reality. In reality, there are some people who can't even learn from their mistakes. I know a guy who accidentally killed someone playing with his gun. Awhile back, AFTER the fatal incident, he shot a hole in the door of the local gun shop. Obviously the kind of guy you'd like to throw out of your gun shop or turn back at the door of a gun show. But he doesn't stand out from a crowd. Short of running him through some sort of a test to see how he handles firearms there's no way to know that he's a danger to himself and others when he has a gun in his hands.

So, is the left correct about the "armed citizen"?

You have created what is called a false dichotomy. That is, you have taken a complicated topic and tried to pretend that there are only two possibilities.

1. The anti-gunners are right and gun owners are irresponsible.
OR
2. Gun shops and gun show organizers are hypocrites because they advocate carry but restrict it on their premises.

But it's a false dichotomy because it's not nearly that simple.

Some gun owners are irresponsible, but in typical situations, the fact that they are few and the fact that the circumstances generally don't have them doing potentially risky activities means that we don't need to worry about citizens firing off unintentional shots at every turn.

HOWEVER, change the circumstances by concentrating large numbers of people all in one spot, all doing the kinds of things that are potentially risky when it comes to NDs and things change.

I don't really think that it's difficult to understand why 1000 people standing around handling guns are more likely to have a mishap than 1000 people who are carrying guns while they eat at a restaurant or watch a movie or go to the grocery store.

I make a conscious decision not to trade with shops who restrict the freedoms of the citizen to be armed.

That is your right. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong to take that stance. If you feel like that is the right course of action then do it.

What I am saying is that your assertion that such restrictions are hypocritical is not based on a conventional definition of the word 'hypocritical'. The idea that people believe that SOME CIRCUMSTANCES can warrant more restrictions than other sets of circumstances is not hypocrisy. It is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that differing circumstances can create differing levels of risk. Different standards for different situations is not hypocrisy. Differing standards for the SAME situation IS hypocrisy.

So if you want to boycott gun shops that prohibit loaded guns, then go right ahead. It's your right. But calling them hypocritical isn't accurate because it fails to take into account the fact that the risk of an ND in a gun shop is much higher than it is in other locations where people carry, but do not handle firearms.

[Skans]

You have created what is called a false dichotomy. That is, you have taken a complicated topic and tried to pretend that there are only two possibilities.

1. The anti-gunners are right and gun owners are irresponsible.
OR
2. Gun shops and gun show organizers are hypocrites because they advocate carry but restrict it on their premises.

But it's a false dichotomy because it's not nearly that simple.

Some gun owners are irresponsible, but in typical situations, the fact that they are few and the fact that the circumstances generally don't have them doing potentially risky activities means that we don't need to worry about citizens firing off unintentional shots at every turn.

HOWEVER, change the circumstances by concentrating large numbers of people all in one spot, all doing the kinds of things that are potentially risky when it comes to NDs and things change.

I don't really think that it's difficult to understand why 1000 people standing around handling guns are more likely to have a mishap than 1000 people who are carrying guns while they eat at a restaurant or watch a movie or go to the grocery store.

Very nicely stated!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree. Very well stated.

[reynolds357]

You have created what is called a false dichotomy. That is, you have taken a complicated topic and tried to pretend that there are only two possibilities.

1. The anti-gunners are right and gun owners are irresponsible.
OR
2. Gun shops and gun show organizers are hypocrites because they advocate carry but restrict it on their premises.

But it's a false dichotomy because it's not nearly that simple.

Some gun owners are irresponsible, but in typical situations, the fact that they are few and the fact that the circumstances generally don't have them doing potentially risky activities means that we don't need to worry about citizens firing off unintentional shots at every turn.

HOWEVER, change the circumstances by concentrating large numbers of people all in one spot, all doing the kinds of things that are potentially risky when it comes to NDs and things change.

I don't really think that it's difficult to understand why 1000 people standing around handling guns are more likely to have a mishap than 1000 people who are carrying guns while they eat at a restaurant or watch a movie or go to the grocery store

No false dichotomy. Advocates of carry rights restricting carry rights is hypocritical.
A common sense approach to the situation is the sign that says "lawful concealed carry welcome here."
At the point in time Joe Fatfinger shows you or anyone else his firearm, it's no longer concealed carry. Throw him out of your store.

[44 AMP]

Advocates of carry rights restricting carry rights is hypocritical.

I disagree. Advocates of unrestricted carry, restricting carry rights would be hypocritical.

Otherwise, I see it as a graded approach to risk assessment.

If everyone was always safe, all the time, if everyone always behaved properly, we wouldn't need to CCW or need a legal system.

They aren't. They don't. And, we do, need both..

Recognizing that all our legal rights have limitations, and living within, even using those limits, while supporting the right, in general is practicality, nothing more.

[reynolds357]

Hypocrisy in its highest is the gun industry saying "don't carry in our shops but carry everywhere else it's legally allowed." Hypocrisy in its highest is pro gun advocacy groups encouraging boycott of prohibited carry non industry business while turning a blind eye to the industry members who have the same policies.

[JohnKSa]

No false dichotomy. Advocates of carry rights restricting carry rights is hypocritical.

The statement that: "Advocates of carry rights restricting carry rights is hypocritical." does not call into question my assertion that you created a false dichotomy by pretending that the only two options were that gun shops/gunshows were hypocrital OR that anti-gunners were right.

A false dichotomy is when a person attempts to bolster the validity of an assertion by claiming that the assertion is one of only two possible options (e.g. either antigunners are right OR gunshops that ban carry are hypocritical) when in reality there are either more possible options or one or both of the claimed options are not actually true.

In this case, both of the stated options are false. The anti-gunners are not right that people can't carry guns responsibly in the general case, and gun stores with no carry policies are not being hypocritical when they advocate carry in DIFFERENT circumstances than exist in gun stores.

A common sense approach to the situation is the sign that says "lawful concealed carry welcome here."

A common sense approach is to look at the risk and make a policy based on the level of risk. I would actually prefer that gun shops allow concealed carry, but I also understand why some gun shops have taken a different approach based on their assessment of risk.

At the point in time Joe Fatfinger shows you or anyone else his firearm, it's no longer concealed carry. Throw him out of your store.

Some stores I know have a policy like this and it seems to have worked for them--or maybe they've just been lucky. Others have holes in the walls resulting from people who acted too swiftly to be stopped before they had an ND. They decided on a different policy, and who can blame them? Should they wait until someone actually gets killed before they try to manage risk? If it were possible to identify and eject people who are dangerously negligent before they can create an incident, things would be a lot simpler. But it's not always possible.

Hypocrisy in its highest is the gun industry saying "don't carry in our shops but carry everywhere else it's legally allowed." Hypocrisy in its highest is pro gun advocacy groups encouraging boycott of prohibited carry non industry business while turning a blind eye to the industry members who have the same policies.

You've already made EXACTLY this assertion multiple times.

Saying a thing repeatedly doesn't make it more true than it was when it was said the first time. More to the point, the reason it is not true has been explained in detail, with multiple examples and in a number of different ways. If your position is logically coherent, shouldn't you be able to attack the explanations and examples with logic instead of just repeating the same assertion over and over?

[reynolds357]

As I have repeatedly stated, hypocrisy is based in principle and not in practicality. Most often when one stands on principles, they do so at the expense of what is practical. The most extreme example is a martyr. To the truly principled person, practicality has no bearing on decision making if that practicality violates principle. If one truly holds to the principle that concealed carry and the armed citizen are the best defense against violent crime, then a man who makes his living selling arms is a blatant hypocrite if he does not allow concealed carry in his store. The hypocrisy is a fact in principle. Your arguments are a set of facts (accurate facts I might add) that attempt to justify their hypocrisy. The shop owner does not trust a person enough to handle a loaded firearm, but he gladly sells them a firearm and ammunition? I might not trust the shooting abilities of the shop owner to keep me safe in the event of an attack.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, that's an interesting definition of the problem. To play the game, since we have laws that allow concealed and open carry, I find them hypocritical as we should allow open hand carry with fingers on the trigger. We do have the right to bear arms. It is hypocritical to demand that they cannot be carried in the fast way to utilize them.

Is it hypocritical to ban guns in the MRI room or immediately adjacent rooms?

[44 AMP]

I suppose it is personal point of view that determines when something is "sticking to one's principles" or "blind adherence to dogma".

I would point out that choosing not to do business with someone you feel is a hypocrite only affects them if they know you are doing it, and why.

It's a proud and noble thing to be the mighty oak, but when a strong enough storm knocks you down, you're done. I would rather be more like bamboo, not as inspiring to look at, but when something knocks it flat, it springs back up, good as before...

[reynolds357]

Well, that's an interesting definition of the problem. To play the game, since we have laws that allow concealed and open carry, I find them hypocritical as we should allow open hand carry with fingers on the trigger. We do have the right to bear arms. It is hypocritical to demand that they cannot be carried in the fast way to utilize them.

Is it hypocritical to ban guns in the MRI room or immediately adjacent rooms?

Let's stay on track here. The MRI industry does not advocate for firearms rights. They don't have guns sitting all around the machine.
The firearms industry and lobby groups do not lobby for people to walk around with their fingers on the trigger and their guns drawn. It would be hypocritical if the industry said "Gun owners should carry in the high ready position at hotels, restaurants, etc but they can not carry in the high ready position in gun stores and trade shows."

[JohnKSa]

As I have repeatedly stated, hypocrisy is based in principle and not in practicality.

'Hypocrisy' is a word with a standard definition.

It means saying one thing and doing another.

It would be hypocrisy for a gun store owner to say that carry should be allowed in gun stores and then ban carry in his own store. Because that is saying one thing about gun store carry and doing another thing about gun store carry.

But it is NOT hypocrisy for a gun store owner to say that carry should be allowed in restaurants and movie theaters and then ban carry in his gun store. Because gun stores are not restaurants and movie theaters.

'Hypocrisy' is something that meets the definition of 'hypocrisy'. 'Hypocrisy' is not something that doesn't meet the definition of 'hypocrisy' no matter what principles or practicalities are involved.

Most often when one stands on principles, they do so at the expense of what is practical. The most extreme example is a martyr. To the truly principled person, practicality has no bearing on decision making if that practicality violates principle.

There is a lot of truth to this. But it's not relevant.

If one truly holds to the principle that concealed carry and the armed citizen are the best defense against violent crime, then a man who makes his living selling arms is a blatant hypocrite if he does not allow concealed carry in his store.

This argument mixes things up a little.

IF a gun store owner truly believes that concealed carry and armed citizens are the best defense, and advocates concealed carry and armed citizens for that reason, and that reason alone, AND, if that person was concerned about the possibility of crime in his gun store and wanted the best defense against it, AND if that person felt that the danger of crime was higher than the danger of being shot by a negligent person in his shop, then yes, he would be hypocritical to ban carry in his store.

If, however, the gun store owner advocates concealed carry because he believes self-defense is a right, regardless of whether it is an effective means of self-defense in general, and if he believes that property owners are justified in restricting carry on their property, and if he is concerned about being killed (or having one of his customers killed or his propery damaged) by someone negligently discharging a firearm in his store, then prohibiting carry wouldn't be hypocritical. It WOULD be hypocritical if he then complained about some other gun shop prohibiting carry after banning it in his own shop.

And it would be hypocritical if he stated that people should be able to carry everywhere and then banned it in his own shop.

The hypocrisy is a fact in principle.

I'm not arguing that there are no circumstances under which it would be hypocritical for a gun store owner to advocate carry and then prohibit it in his own store.

But it is not possible to make a sweeping statement about it being hypocritical without knowing a lot more details. If we know exactly why a gun store owner advocates carry and if we know why he bans carry in his shop, and if the two motivations are contradictory, then that would be hypocritical. But to make that assessment we need to know the motivation for both his support for carry and his reason for banning carry.

And it certainly isn't hypocritical to advocate for carry under certain circumstances while noting that different situations and circumstances can warrant banning carry.

The shop owner does not trust a person enough to handle a loaded firearm, but he gladly sells them a firearm and ammunition?

This also, is not hypocrisy, nor is it really an accurate description of the situation.

The gun owner who bans carry in his shop isn't stating that every person who comes in is incompetent. He's pointing out that some are and he doesn't know which ones are and aren't. Your comment makes it sound like he knows that a given person is negligent and yet he's selling them guns and ammo anyway. The fact is that he doesn't know, and there's no simple test to find out, if a given person is or isn't negligent. More to the point, most people, yourself included, would be highly indignant if a gun store made you prove your competence with firearms before they would agree to sell you a box of ammo--and that's without getting into how they would manage such a thing.

So the gun store owner sells to the people who have the money and pass the background check and don't raise any red flags. But that doesn't mean he's assessing them as competent or incompetent. It is, in fact, the difficulty in assessing people who walk in off the street that motivates some gun store owners to place blanket restrictions in an attempt to keep their shop, themselves, and their customers unshot when the undetectable negligent person walks in.

I might not trust the shooting abilities of the shop owner to keep me safe in the event of an attack.

This is a reasonable argument, but it doesn't have any relevance to whether or not a gun store owner is hypocritical or not. It does speak to one practical reason why you would be opposed to carry restrictions in stores, but not one that's relevant to pure principle or to an argument about hypocrisy.

The MRI industry does not advocate for firearms rights.

But the point is a good one. If a particular doctor advocates for firearms rights, would it be hypocritical to ban firearms in an MRI room? Of course not--because there are valid reasons for the ban that have nothing to do with the doctor's position on carry. Does it mean that he's proving that anti-gunners are right? Again, no, because the circumstances are different in the MRI room and dangers exist there that are essentially a non-issue in other areas.

[reynolds357]

Johnksa,
I would ask you how tis issue looks to the average American when they examine the issue. The NRA etc advocates that carry rights make us safer. At the same time, the opposition states that most gun shops and gun shows don't allow concealed carry, so how does it make us safer? (I have me heard that said in the news)
I contend this is hypocrisy. You contend it is not. The average American will agree with me. The industry has to get onboard with defending our freedoms. Hypocritical actions damage our freedoms.

[44 AMP]

The NRA etc advocates that carry rights make us safer. At the same time, the opposition states that most gun shops and gun shows don't allow concealed carry, so how does it make us safer? (I have me heard that said in the news)

I think you are confusing "safer" with "absolute safety". And it seems that you are finding a level of hypocrisy the rest of us aren't seeing, or seeing the same way.

Being armed and able to carry, GENERALLY makes us safer, because the ability to defend ourselves matters. And what we support is the right in general, recognizing that there are specific situations where the general yields to the specific for increased overall safety.

You can buy cigarettes at the gas station, but if you light up at the pumps while filling your car, SOMEONE is going to be very ….put out..(and perhaps NEED to be put out, perhaps, you!)

You can buy condoms at WalMart, but if you make whoopie in the aisle, expect someone to call security, the cops, and these days, probably post an internet video...

"your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" isn't hypocrisy. It's reality.

[reynolds357]

I think you are confusing "safer" with "absolute safety". And it seems that you are finding a level of hypocrisy the rest of us aren't seeing, or seeing the same way.

Being armed and able to carry, GENERALLY makes us safer, because the ability to defend ourselves matters. And what we support is the right in general, recognizing that there are specific situations where the general yields to the specific for increased overall safety.

You can buy cigarettes at the gas station, but if you light up at the pumps while filling your car, SOMEONE is going to be very ….put out..(and perhaps NEED to be put out, perhaps, you!)

You can buy condoms at WalMart, but if you make whoopie in the aisle, expect someone to call security, the cops, and these days, probably post an internet video...

"your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" isn't hypocrisy. It's reality.

There are laws against smoking at the gas pump and laws against fornicating in public. Both those examples are non issues due to their illegality. The same laws apply in my discussion to both gun shops and hotels etc. I am not talking about right to carry in a gun store. I am talking about the hypocrisy of not allowing carry in a gun store while advocating that carry makes us safer.

[JohnKSa]

I contend this is hypocrisy. You contend it is not. The average American will agree with me.

Since it's probably true that the "average American" doesn't spend time thinking about what they are told by others, in the media or elsewhere, and merely accepts things blindly, you are probably correct.

That doesn't mean that they are right. The majority doesn't determine the truth--a thing isn't right just because the majority thinks it is.

I am talking about the hypocrisy of not allowing carry in a gun store while advocating that carry makes us safer.

Ok, for one thing, the idea that "carry makes us safer" is not the only reason for advocating carry. By refusing to accept that fact, you have made yourself voluntarily blind to an important aspect of this discussion.

Secondly, the idea that there are some aspects of carry that can positively impact safety does not mean that carry makes us safer across the board. It is certainly true that there is one aspect of carry that makes us LESS safe. People who carry are more likely to be injured or killed by an ND than those who do not. It's a simple fact that if you don't carry, you can't accidentally shoot yourself with your carry gun.

You have chosen to very narrowly focus on one reason that some people advocate carry and to pretend that it is the only possible reason for advocating carry rights.

At the same time, you have chosen to take a very narrow view of why some gun shops ban carry, assumed that your view is the only valid one and steadfastly maintained that the details just don't matter.

Finally, you have chosen to define the word 'hypocrisy' very broadly which makes it simpler to satisfy the criteria for its applicability.

All of that results in a skewed view of the situation.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer or any other way and I honestly can't tell if you are ignoring my explanations or if you don't understand them. Either way this is pretty pointless.

I agree that there is the appearance of hypocrisy, if the assessment is made at a glance. I agree that it's possible, perhaps even easy to acquire the misperception that it is hypocrisy. I submit that the solution to both of these problems is education. Provide the details for those who haven't looked into it enough to understand the situation and explain how it is a misperception.

It makes no sense at all to say that because people are confused about the issue or have misperceptions about it, we need to tell people to change their policies. What is needed is to help people gain an accurate understanding of the situation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The OP has reminded me that the focus of his post was:

5year old shot with dads gun
So here is the story.

https://news.yahoo.com/5-old-shot-fa...151519453.html

I post this story because as a gun owner I do not know how to respond to this event. To me it is horribly tragic yet highly preventable. I wish the story had more detail.

Some of the comments I'd read following the story are just downright crude and heartless as I am sure the father never thought this would or could happen.

Being a father and grandfather if this were to happen to me someone should just get me a gun and let me end it because I don't think I could ever live with myself if I was responsible .. Sorry may be over emotional ATM.

I will also add that at this time I do not conceal carry so I am not in a position to argue either way.

He has reminded me that we have gone completely off the rails with discussion of gun shows, stores, and hypocrites.

The staff has contributed to that (including me), so at his request, I'm going to ask that we return to the point of the OP. If not, we can close this and start a new thread on definitions of hypocrisy and how that relates to gun shows.

So let's all do this.

[kmw1954]

Thank you Glenn.

[USNRet93]

The child, who was with his mother at the time, managed to unbuckle his car booster seat and grab the 45-semi-automatic in the pocket behind the front passenger seat, WFMY News reported. Leonard said that the gun went off, shooting the child in the face.

The boy’s mother was unaware the gun was in the vehicle, investigators said. The child’s father said he had placed the gun in the car a few days prior while cleaning the car and reportedly forgot to remove it.

Sorry, don't get this. My guns are either on my body or locked up. They are NEVER unlocked or un-attended. O don't understand how somebody could 'forget' where his gun is. Does he have so many he can't keep track of them?
Even if I take my gun off and leave it in a car, it's locked up. PLUS I sure don't 'forget' it's there..

Hopefully the gent is charged and feels the pain of this in addition to the pain of hurting his child.