The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 5, 2019, 08:06 PM   #26
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
These stories bring up good points to ponder. I was still working SWAT/Narcotics when my oldest son was young. I quit carrying off duty. EVERYTHING is a calculated risk. In my calculation, I determined that for those few years, the risk of having a pistol easily accessible outweighed the risk of needing a pistol readily accessible.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 5, 2019, 08:15 PM   #27
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Those people who feel without thinking things through will continue to be influenced by the "spin" of the headline. Those who use rational thought will see that it was the individual, not the community at fault.
We as a gun community talk a good talk, but we do not abide by our own rhetoric. How many times have you been to a gun store or gun show with the sign "no loaded firearms." Why do we say that the armed citizen is the best way to make us safe, yet the gun dealers do not want citizens armed inside their stores? HYPOCRITES! I actually changed who I deal with over this issue. There is only one gun shop in the area that welcomes loaded firearms inside. They now get my money. They don't keep their long guns behind the counter either. I quit going to gun shows because they are hypocrites.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 5, 2019, 09:58 PM   #28
kmw1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,212
Well how about this, another mass shooting in California and right after a California Senator is calling for more to be done to prevent "Gun Violence". So the anti-gun cries the loudest the "spin headliners" just keep reporting it and reinforcing that same message. Exactly how much more can be done in California before complete confiscation takes effect? How and when do we fight back against that before it is spread nationwide?

Soon just like plastic buckets there will be a warning label on all guns that they could cause injury or death.
kmw1954 is offline  
Old January 5, 2019, 10:11 PM   #29
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,100
Quote:
Exactly how much more can be done in California before complete confiscation takes effect?
The "beauty" of gun-control is that since it doesn't actually reduce crime or stop mass shootings, anti-gunners can always come back in a year or two, or after the next sensational headline news event and make the laws more restrictive because crime still hasn't dropped and mass shootings still happen.

Because the stated goal of the law isn't consistent with the actual effect of the law, anti-gunners can continue to use the stated goal to justify more and more restrictions with the confidence that there's no danger that the restrictions might actually reduce crime so much that no further restrictions would be justified.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 6, 2019, 12:47 AM   #30
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 4,660
@JohnKSa....the real “beauty” is that it never takes a gun away. It just relocates them to the wealthy and the criminals.
Nathan is online now  
Old January 6, 2019, 01:12 AM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
Quote:
How many times have you been to a gun store or gun show with the sign "no loaded firearms."
Is it hypocrisy when the range goes "cold"?

you can't drink in the liquor store, you can't smoke in the smoke shop, and you can't have sex in the grocery store or 7-11 where you buy condoms.

In the case of gun shows, no loaded guns could be a condition of the facility owner, or a condition of insurance coverage. Simply put, no matter how the show owners may personally feel, no venue, no show. And in many places, no insurance, no venue, no show.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 6, 2019, 11:16 AM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
The local gun show put up ban signs after an ND. The owner told me he thought the signs were terrible and the wrong message. However, his insurance folks said to and there are too many idiots out there. So he should go out of business for purity. No thanks.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old January 6, 2019, 08:28 PM   #33
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Is it hypocrisy when the range goes "cold"?

you can't drink in the liquor store, you can't smoke in the smoke shop, and you can't have sex in the grocery store or 7-11 where you buy condoms.

In the case of gun shows, no loaded guns could be a condition of the facility owner, or a condition of insurance coverage. Simply put, no matter how the show owners may personally feel, no venue, no show. And in many places, no insurance, no venue, no show.
Has anyone made a serious case that liquor or cigarettes make you safer? We contend that we should be allowed to carry in restaurants, public buildings, movie theatres, electronics stores, etc. because a well armed citizen is the best defense against the criminal. Why is the well armed citizen not a good thing in the gun store? Plain and simple hypocrisy.
It is not hypocrisy for the range to go cold. It is hypocrisy for the range to prohibit either concealed or open carry.

Last edited by reynolds357; January 6, 2019 at 09:50 PM.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 6, 2019, 08:31 PM   #34
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
The local gun show put up ban signs after an ND. The owner told me he thought the signs were terrible and the wrong message. However, his insurance folks said to and there are too many idiots out there. So he should go out of business for purity. No thanks.
It seems the antigunners and the left are right. The citizenry is not responsible enough to carry arms.
If we are not responsible enough to carry at gun shows and gun shops, why are we responsible enough to carry anywhere ekse? We raise heck about Hilton brands not allowing guns in their hotels yet we don't allow guns to be carried in our gun stores, gun shops, and trade shows. Do you not see a problem with that?
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 7, 2019, 12:12 AM   #35
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,100
Quote:
It seems the antigunners and the left are right. The citizenry is not responsible enough to carry arms.
Rants and sarcasm aside, from a purely practical perspective, a gun shop that has accumulated a number of bullet holes in the lobby is more than entitled to observe accurately that ENOUGH of the people who have come into their shop were not responsible enough to carry loaded weapons and use that as reasonable justification for a policy designed to prevent additional holes from being shot in the walls.

It's their shop after all--their walls, potentially their hides and their customers' hides that might be the next location to develop an unwanted bullet hole. Who are we to tell them that their tolerance for people accidentally shooting in their place of business is much too low and that makes them hypocrites?
Quote:
If we are not responsible enough to carry at gun shows and gun shops, why are we responsible enough to carry anywhere ekse?
When people are at McDonalds, they aren't tempted to whip out their loaded carry gun and do a little show and tell for the person taking their fries order or for the person at the next table--I know I've never seen anything like that. At the gun shop or gun show, things are different--I know I HAVE seen customers use their carry guns for show and tell in that environment.

People don't typically bring guns to McDonalds for warranty repair, to trade them in, or to have the staff service them and that dramatically cuts down on the potential for someone cranking off a round at McDonalds while they are demonstrating to the manager why their rifle won't shoot right any more. On the other hand, it's pretty common for customers to return firearms to gun shops for service or replacement, and some of those are definitely brought in loaded.

At a gun show, there are hundreds of people handling firearms at any given moment. Over the course of a three day show, literally thousands of people will handle firearms. Over the course of an entire year at all the McDonalds in a large city, the number of people who will be handling a firearm in one of those facilities is tiny. The probability of someone firing a negligent shot at a gun show, even though it's full of mostly responsible people is fairly significant because there are so many people there, all engaging in potentially risky activity (risky from the perspective of negligent discharges). The probability of an ND at a McDonalds is obviously tremendously smaller than the probability of an ND at a gun show even if the percentage of irresponsible people is the same at both locations.

I think that it's important to keep a reasonable perspective. Pretending that an environment like a restaurant, or a Wal-Mart, or a movie theater is identical, from the perspective of the risk of negligent discharges, when compared to gun shows or gun shops is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't like it when gun shops or gun shows restrict carry or loaded guns on the premises. But the bottom line is that after a business owner or gun show organizer has the PROOF in the form of bullet holes and past NDs that the risk of someone popping off a round negligently in that environment is unacceptably high, how can we reasonably complain that they shouldn't try to reduce that risk by implementing no carry policies?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 09:10 AM   #36
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
I don't like it when gun shops or gun shows restrict carry or loaded guns on the premises. But the bottom line is that after a business owner or gun show organizer has the PROOF in the form of bullet holes and past NDs that the risk of someone popping off a round negligently in that environment is unacceptably high, how can we reasonably complain that they shouldn't try to reduce that risk by implementing no carry policies?
I am not being sarcastic. It appears to me that if the gun industry does not trust the armed citizenry to carry in industry establishments, then the arms industry and lobby should not expect other industries to trust the armed citizen. It seems the industry concedes to the point of the left and the antigunners. We can make excuse after excuse. Granted, there is extreme validity in the excuses. At the end of the day, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The arms industry is a lot like my Doctor. He asked me if I had a flu shot. I said no. He said I needed one. I asked him if he had taken one. He said "Uh huh, no. I had a reaction to one a long time back."
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 7, 2019, 10:51 AM   #37
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 765
They aren't excuses, they are facts. The more you use a thing, the more you handle it, the more likely you are to have a problem, even a tragic problem. Ergo, the more miles you put on your car, the more likely you are to have a crash. The more guns and people you put together in a room, the more likely you are to have a ND.

In my years of going to gun shows and gun stores, I have seen people sweep me with the muzzle of a gun more times than I care to count so I simply ignore the problem even though it sends a chill up and down my spine. When I pick up a gun to look at it, the biggest problem is to decide where to point the muzzle just to look through the sights. Upper corner of the ceiling is about all there is and even then....

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 12:19 PM   #38
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Facts used as excuses. It is raining outside my house is a fact. I could choose whether to or whether not to use it as an excuse not to work. If hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc ban guns, then they also reduce their chance of a N.D. The exact reasoning you are using to defend prohibiting carry in a gun store is the same reasoning the anti gunners use to propose anti carry everywhere.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 7, 2019, 01:49 PM   #39
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,810
Quote:
I think that it's important to keep a reasonable perspective. Pretending that an environment like a restaurant, or a Wal-Mart, or a movie theater is identical, from the perspective of the risk of negligent discharges, when compared to gun shows or gun shops is absolutely ridiculous.
A couple of years ago, I was at a gun show where a negligent discharge took place. Keep in mind, the police check guns at the door to make sure they are not loaded and then strap the action making it inactive. The entire building, full of at least 1,000 people went dead silent. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Whenever lots of people will be handling guns, there does need to be strict rules in place. Because out of 1,000 functional people, 140 of them will have IQ's between 70-85.
Skans is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 02:28 PM   #40
kmw1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,212
This whole topic started as a transport incident as a gun was left in a car. Now last night I had another incident that gave me concern.

My brother whom I shoot with and is a CC holder came by last night to show us his new car. On the way home he struck a deer running into the road. He was not hurt but did call 911 for the police and then called us. So now I have 2 questions, both related. What happens if he were injured and unconscious and carrying? Next what if he was unconscious and also had a range bag in the car full of guns? How do the police handle this situation and what happen if they tow the vehicle not knowing there is a bag full of guns in the back? Again I have never been in this situation so I truly do not know.
kmw1954 is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 02:41 PM   #41
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,848
Quote:
We as a gun community talk a good talk, but we do not abide by our own rhetoric. How many times have you been to a gun store or gun show with the sign "no loaded firearms." Why do we say that the armed citizen is the best way to make us safe, yet the gun dealers do not want citizens armed inside their stores? HYPOCRITES! I actually changed who I deal with over this issue. There is only one gun shop in the area that welcomes loaded firearms inside. They now get my money. They don't keep their long guns behind the counter either. I quit going to gun shows because they are hypocrites.
Well hyprocracy is a well learned response. We have very open gun laws.

But the same legislature that wrote those laws will not let an armed citizen in the chambers.

So, as there is no risk and armed is better, why is it not so for them?

Because there is a risk and they want to put it on someone else but not themselves.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 02:42 PM   #42
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,848
Quote:
Because out of 1,000 functional people, 140 of them will have IQ's between 70-85.
I hate to break this to you but its not the IQ level, its the attitude.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 04:00 PM   #43
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Whenever lots of people will be handling guns, there does need to be strict rules in place. Because out of 1,000 functional people, 140 of them will have IQ's between 70-85.
Out of 100,000 people less than one will be a mass shooter. None of you are bolstering the "well armed Citizen" argument. You are actually conceding the talking points of the anti gun lobby.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 7, 2019, 05:47 PM   #44
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,651
Never kept a chamber loaded in the house until my kids were old enough to >understand the danger of all firearms period< no matter where~found. And no I didn't sit my kids down at age 1 or 2 and expect them to stay focused on the danger of firearms. More like six or seven years of age before their >serious< gun tutoring took place.

How a adult can leave a loaded firearm within the grasps of a unknowing child.

That fellow or gal deserves {20 to Life} so to mull-over his or her caviler like stupidity.
__________________
"JUST A OLD DEPLORABLE THAT'S IRREDEMABLE."
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 11:24 PM   #45
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,989
Quote:
My brother whom I shoot with and is a CC holder came by last night to show us his new car. On the way home he struck a deer running into the road. He was not hurt but did call 911 for the police and then called us. So now I have 2 questions, both related. What happens if he were injured and unconscious and carrying? Next what if he was unconscious and also had a range bag in the car full of guns? How do the police handle this situation and what happen if they tow the vehicle not knowing there is a bag full of guns in the back? Again I have never been in this situation so I truly do not know.
That is a very jurisdictional-dependent response. There is no one answer, but I can tell you what I would do at my agency. Many jurisdictions search and inventory a vehicle before it is towed as a part of policy. My agency has no inventory policy, so we typically do not search vehicles that are towed as a result of a motor vehicle collision. So if there is no gun on the person, but some in the range bag in the trunk, it's probably going with the wrecker in my town.

Now if I were to come across an unconscious victim in a car wreck who is carrying, I will probably hold onto it. If injured to that extent, I'll probably have to go to the hospital to finish my investigation (get further details of extent of injuries, etc.). Hopefully, and in most cases, a spouse or other next of kin will show up. At that point, after doing a quick CCH on both the victim and next of kin (policy requirement when transferring a firearm out of my custody) to confirm neither are prohibited persons I will turn the firearm over to next of kin. If no responsible person presents themselves at the hospital, I'll enter the pistol into evidence for safekeeping.

And as a side note, if I came across an injured victim in a car wreck who is CCH, I will probably go through the car to make sure the tow company doesn't tow a car with guns in it. We have had problems with employees at tow companies taking items from vehicles, and my "search" would be for no other reason to protect theft of the person's property (especially in the case of firearms).
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 11:45 PM   #46
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,100
Quote:
It appears to me that if the gun industry does not trust the armed citizenry to carry in industry establishments, then the arms industry and lobby should not expect other industries to trust the armed citizen.
They've tried "trust" and found it doesn't work in some circumstances. That doesn't mean it doesn't work in ALL circumstances--in some circumstances it obviously does work very well.

We're not talking about abstract concepts here. How many times does a customer get to shoot a hole in the wall of a gun shop before the owner is justified in making a policy to reduce risk? How many NDs should a gun show organizer tolerate before zip-tieing all the guns that come in the door? Should they wait until someone gets injured or killed, or maybe not even that would warrant such a policy?
Quote:
Facts used as excuses.
Facts used as facts. A bullet hole in the wall is a fact. An ND at a gun show is a fact. Those are REAL risks. Holes that could be in a person instead of a wall. Lawsuits that could bankrupt a business. Are you going to pay the medical bills or funeral expenses? Are you going to pay the legal fees or support the employees when someone goes out of business after a lawsuit?

The risk is REAL, the consequences are REAL. Calling it nothing more than excuses is ignoring reality.
Quote:
If hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc ban guns, then they also reduce their chance of a N.D. The exact reasoning you are using to defend prohibiting carry in a gun store is the same reasoning the anti gunners use to propose anti carry everywhere.
ONLY if you pretend that the circumstances in a hotel, restaurant or theater are the same as those in a gun shop or a gun show. I pointed out in my last post that they are not, and then explained in careful detail why they are not.

If you want to ignore reality and pretend that restaurants are just as likely to experience NDs as gunshops, I'm not sure what else can be said. But answer me this: How many people have you seen bring a gun into a restaurant to show to the manager and demonstrate how it doesn't work right? How many people have you seen pull out a carry gun in a restaurant to show it to another customer or a staff member? How many people handle guns and ammunition at restaurants vs at gun shows?

So NO, it's not the exact reasoning at all. What you're saying is roughly the same thing as claiming that a person has the same risk of being in a fatal wreck while they're still in their driveway as on the expressway. Sure, they're driving in both cases, but the circumstances are dramatically different in just about every way possible.
Quote:
You are actually conceding the talking points of the anti gun lobby.
Not at all. Pointing out that differing risk levels can warrant differing policies is not conceding anything.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 01:20 AM   #47
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
It appears to me that if the gun industry does not trust the armed citizenry to carry in industry establishments, then the arms industry and lobby should not expect other industries to trust the armed citizen.
They've tried "trust" and found it doesn't work in some circumstances. That doesn't mean it doesn't work in ALL circumstances--in some circumstances it obviously does work very well.

We're not talking about abstract concepts here. How many times does a customer get to shoot a hole in the wall of a gun shop before the owner is justified in making a policy to reduce risk? How many NDs should a gun show organizer tolerate before zip-tieing all the guns that come in the door? Should they wait until someone gets injured or killed, or maybe not even that would warrant such a policy?
Quote:
Facts used as excuses.
Facts used as facts. A bullet hole in the wall is a fact. An ND at a gun show is a fact. Those are REAL risks. Holes that could be in a person instead of a wall. Lawsuits that could bankrupt a business. Are you going to pay the medical bills or funeral expenses? Are you going to pay the legal fees or support the employees when someone goes out of business after a lawsuit?

The risk is REAL, the consequences are REAL. Calling it nothing more than excuses is ignoring reality.
Quote:
If hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc ban guns, then they also reduce their chance of a N.D. The exact reasoning you are using to defend prohibiting carry in a gun store is the same reasoning the anti gunners use to propose anti carry everywhere.
ONLY if you pretend that the circumstances in a hotel, restaurant or theater are the same as those in a gun shop or a gun show. I pointed out in my last post that they are not, and then explained in careful detail why they are not.

If you want to ignore reality and pretend that restaurants are just as likely to experience NDs as gunshops, I'm not sure what else can be said. But answer me this: How many people have you seen bring a gun into a restaurant to show to the manager and demonstrate how it doesn't work right? How many people have you seen pull out a carry gun in a restaurant to show it to another customer or a staff member? How many people handle guns and ammunition at restaurants vs at gun shows?

So NO, it's not the exact reasoning at all. What you're saying is roughly the same thing as claiming that a person has the same risk of being in a fatal wreck while they're still in their driveway as on the expressway. Sure, they're driving in both cases, but the circumstances are dramatically different in just about every way possible.
Quote:
You are actually conceding the talking points of the anti gun lobby.
Not at all. Pointing out that differing risk levels can warrant differing policies is not conceding anything.
It is hypocrisy of the highest form.
Is the hotel or restaurant owner expected to assume liability the industry is not willing to assume? I am a rare person that lets principle dominate my decision making. Principle TRUMPS practicality. The principle shown here is highest order hypocrisy.
I understand what you are saying. It is the same reason the antigunners use for wanting to disarm America.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 8, 2019, 02:32 AM   #48
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,100
Quote:
It is hypocrisy of the highest form.
Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Saying in situation X, people should do Y but then finding myself in situation X and doing Z instead would be hypocrisy.

But if the circumstances are different in the two situations, then it is NOT hypocrisy because the two situations are not the same. Saying in situation X, people should do Y, and then finding myself in situation W and doing Z is not hypocrisy because situation X is not the same as situation W.

Hypocrisy would be saying that I believe it is wrong to restrict the carry of loaded guns in gun shops and at gun shows but then not allowing people to carry loaded guns into my gun shop or at a gun show that I organize.

It is not hypocrisy for me to say that I believe it is wrong to place strict restrictions on carry in most public places while acknowledging that the additional risk in certain situations and places can warrant stricter restrictions than I might otherwise support in the general case. You might disagree with my viewpoint, but it wouldn't be accurate to call it hypocrisy because it doesn't meet the definition of hypocrisy.
Quote:
Is the hotel or restaurant owner expected to assume liability the industry is not willing to assume?
The risk level is not the same. How many restaurant owners have stories about NDs in their restaurants? How many hotels have thousands of people handling guns on their premises in a single weekend? How many loaded guns are being pulled out and shown to others in a restaurant?

Different circumstances, different risk. Different risks warrant different levels of risk reduction.

I am an engineer. I go out in public every day just like a police officer does. However, my risk of being shot is just about nil. So am I being hypocritical when I say that I believe a police officer should wear a bullet proof vest while on the job while saying that it would be ridiculous for me to do the same? Of course not. Although we both have jobs and both go out in public and both experience risk in the course of a day, the circumstances of our jobs mean that the risk levels are very different and therefore the steps we need to take to deal with that risk are also going to be very different if we both take a reasonable approach to risk reduction/mitigation.

But, if both of us get shot, won't the potential "liability" be the same? YES. Getting shot could kill either of us. It's not the potential outcome that makes the difference in our actions, it's the differing risk level. I'm not saying he should wear a bullet proof vest to work because he is more vulnerable to bullets than I am. I'm making my assertion because his risk level of being shot is higher.
Quote:
I understand what you are saying. It is the same reason the antigunners use for wanting to disarm America.
If you believe that it is the same then you don't understand. And again, saying something repeatedly won't make it true.

There are places where virtually believes guns should not be allowed due to unacceptable risk or unusual circumstances. The idea that people believe that a defendant should not be allowed to carry into a courtroom or that prisoners shouldn't be allowed to carry in jail, or that children shouldn't take guns to school, or that the risk of NDs is high enough at gunshows to warrant zip-tieing all firearms, doesn't mean that they are anti-gun. It just means that they accept that circumstances can change the level of risk and that differing levels of risk can warrant differing policies.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 09:08 AM   #49
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,810
Quote:
Out of 100,000 people less than one will be a mass shooter. None of you are bolstering the "well armed Citizen" argument. You are actually conceding the talking points of the anti gun lobby.
No we aren't. I was talking about a situation where thousands of people would be handling, showing, letting others handle their own private loaded weapons. Most people who own a gun or carry do not excessively handle, pull trigger, rack slide on their own guns. But, at a gun show, that's what a gun show is for - playing with guns. I think it's a good idea to have a rule in place that ensures they are at least unloaded. Same thing with gun stores. If I were working behind the counter and had to deal with every Tom Fatfinger showing me his unholstered Glock, I too would have a strict rule of no loaded guns in my store.
Skans is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 10:41 AM   #50
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
No we aren't. I was talking about a situation where thousands of people would be handling, showing, letting others handle their own private loaded weapons. Most people who own a gun or carry do not excessively handle, pull trigger, rack slide on their own guns. But, at a gun show, that's what a gun show is for - playing with guns. I think it's a good idea to have a rule in place that ensures they are at least unloaded. Same thing with gun stores. If I were working behind the counter and had to deal with every Tom Fatfinger showing me his unholstered Glock, I too would have a strict rule of no loaded guns in my store.
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.
reynolds357 is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10199 seconds with 8 queries