Guns in restaurants draw stares but little outcry

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
You realize, of course, that most of us agree with you....

BTW, of course I do bud. However, the discourse(s) that we have offer up a view as to the reality of the situation to others. We MUST awaken our fellow citizens to the TRUTH of just what it is that our 'servants' our perpetrating against us. We The People MUST return to the TRUTH of the knowledge that ALL power is inherently in US. And, that both We, and our 'servants' in government, are BOUND by solemn compact. That ANY straying from that compact can lead to misery and death....

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
Two words, okay five words: beats the hell outa me!

Perhaps it would be better if we "beat the hell" out of THEM....

[You missed the point]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
You need statistical proof on the matter of visibility?
How about two hypothetical situations—
—————
Example #1:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar just packed with inordinately horny women, all whom are intensely aroused at the sight of the erectile human male sexual apparatus.
One guy is wearing regular street clothes, the other is stark naked.
They both have erections.
Which of them is going to get the most 'notice?'
—————
Example #2:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar, where —amongst the patrons— there are a few criminals looking to acquire an easy pistol.
The first guy is wearing his arm exposed, whereas the second is wearing his concealed.
The criminals make note of the guy with the exposed arm, and after having a few drinks, he needs to use the restroom.
As he enters that restroom, so too do the criminals, and once inside they pull =their= guns on him, and relieve him of his.
The guy who was wearing his concealed is not molested by the criminals, because he was seen as not worthy of additional attention. Potential perhaps, but not emphatically so. The thought here? If you can see it, then you =KNOW= of its existence.
<quoted text>
Well, until you experience the exhilarating feeling of being eyed by potential thugs, about all you have to go on is supposition.
However, there are other contributors here and bout, who are cops —or were formerly— and one of the things they've mentioned is the 'snatch' or 'grab' maneuver, where someone comes up behind you and grabs your sidearm, yanking it from the holster.
I want you to think about this: Reaction is slower than action in progress. What that means is that when someone is grabbing at your sidearm, your instinct is to lift your arms to see what the heck is going on, thereby facilitating the grab. By the time you actually react to the action, the grab is complete.
It takes an incredible amount of time to 'train to retain,' AND that mental attitude must be a constant ALL THE TIME, just as with situational awareness.
Now granted: If you're wearing shoulder rig, that would have to be a frontal attack, and not so likely. But who wants to take chances?
<quoted text>As a matter of fact!

Blah Blah Blah, yada, yada yada....same old concealed carry is the best rhetoric. Basely solely on hypotheticals with no real-world cases to supplement.

[You missed the point]

I think the "open carry makes you a target" stance is about at valid as the "concealed carry laws with turn the streets red with blood" cries of the anti's. Neither has yet proven to be true.

Well put!!

[Monty]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
You need statistical proof on the matter of visibility?
How about two hypothetical situations—
—————
Example #1:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar just packed with inordinately horny women, all whom are intensely aroused at the sight of the erectile human male sexual apparatus.
One guy is wearing regular street clothes, the other is stark naked.
They both have erections.
Which of them is going to get the most 'notice?'
—————
Example #2:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar, where —amongst the patrons— there are a few criminals looking to acquire an easy pistol.
The first guy is wearing his arm exposed, whereas the second is wearing his concealed.
The criminals make note of the guy with the exposed arm, and after having a few drinks, he needs to use the restroom.
As he enters that restroom, so too do the criminals, and once inside they pull =their= guns on him, and relieve him of his.
The guy who was wearing his concealed is not molested by the criminals, because he was seen as not worthy of additional attention. Potential perhaps, but not emphatically so. The thought here? If you can see it, then you =KNOW= of its existence.
<quoted text>
Well, until you experience the exhilarating feeling of being eyed by potential thugs, about all you have to go on is supposition.
However, there are other contributors here and bout, who are cops —or were formerly— and one of the things they've mentioned is the 'snatch' or 'grab' maneuver, where someone comes up behind you and grabs your sidearm, yanking it from the holster.
I want you to think about this: Reaction is slower than action in progress. What that means is that when someone is grabbing at your sidearm, your instinct is to lift your arms to see what the heck is going on, thereby facilitating the grab. By the time you actually react to the action, the grab is complete.
It takes an incredible amount of time to 'train to retain,' AND that mental attitude must be a constant ALL THE TIME, just as with situational awareness.
Now granted: If you're wearing shoulder rig, that would have to be a frontal attack, and not so likely. But who wants to take chances?
<quoted text>As a matter of fact!

KUDOS!!!!

[Highlander]

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
Two words, okay five words: beats the hell outa me!

You could have used just one word: HellifIknow (hell if I know).

;-)

[Highlander]

You missed the point wrote:

<quoted text>
Blah Blah Blah, yada, yada yada....same old concealed carry is the best rhetoric. Basely solely on hypotheticals with no real-world cases to supplement.

So, >YOU< would FORCE open carry, i.e., there would be no choice of carriage?

[Missed the POint]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
So, >YOU< would FORCE open carry, i.e., there would be no choice of carriage?

Nope, remember, I agreed with your "to each his own". Personally, I carry open 95% of the time but there is the remaining 5% that I carry concealed. My problem with your comments are two-fold:
1. You preach a lot about infringement of rights yet you advocate for concealed carry which in the state of Washington requires a permit....while open carry requires no permit. This is telling me that you either a) concealed carry without a permit or b) are o.k. with having to ask the state's permission to carry concealed.
2. The pros you present for concealed carry are based on nothing more then speculation and use arguments very similar to anti-gun folks. Open carrying doesn't make you a target, helps educate the public on their rights, and allows for faster draws as well as less hassle on what to wear to ensure the gun is concealed.

[Missed the POint]

P.S. I used Washington as an example because your ISP Location states Seattle, WA....I just noticed your profile says "Lots of different places" but my point remains the same.

[Highlander]

Missed the POint wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, remember, I agreed with your "to each his own". Personally, I carry open 95% of the time but there is the remaining 5% that I carry concealed. My problem with your comments are two-fold:
1. You preach a lot about infringement of rights yet you advocate for concealed carry which in the state of Washington requires a permit....while open carry requires no permit. This is telling me that you either a) concealed carry without a permit or b) are o.k. with having to ask the state's permission to carry concealed.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Washington legal landscape: Carrying open WILL result in you being harassed by the police and very likely arrested — PERIOD.

Although it is a legal form of carriage, open carry is =EXTREMELY= frowned upon by the diqueweeds in uniform. If I were more wealthy, I'd take the lot of them to court, and put the buggers out-of-business yesterday!

Missed the POint wrote:

2. The pros you present for concealed carry are based on nothing more then speculation and use arguments very similar to anti-gun folks. Open carrying doesn't make you a target, helps educate the public on their rights, and allows for faster draws as well as less hassle on what to wear to ensure the gun is concealed.

It is ~not~ my contention to —in whatever way— advocate a particular form of carriage. And it never was.

Rather, my idea has always been just this: Give NO indication to a possible enemy of your capabilities — EVER. ALWAYS make them guess.

Maybe you just don't understand that philosophy on life?
If someone understands you to be dangerous, they ~might~ leave you alone.
But then again? They might bring associates sufficient to overcome your KNOWN strength.

Ergo, NEVER reveal your FULL capabilities to ANYONE, PERIOD.

Ever read Sun Tzu?

[Highlander]

Missed the POint wrote:

P.S. I used Washington as an example because your ISP Location states Seattle, WA....I just noticed your profile says "Lots of different places" but my point remains the same.

What would you have me say?

I AM from many different places.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Remember people, we have enough anti's to battle without having to do so among ourselves....

"Missed the POint", am glad that you are aboard and in the battle. Will state that Highlander is ONE HUNDRED+ PERCENT "PRO"-gun rights. Of that I have NO doubt whatsoever. He and I have communicated, both on these forums and off, for well over a year. Would suggest that you consider that perhaps you may have misunderstood where he was coming from?...

[Cumm Gunn]

As long as they don't have any public accidental discharges wit der cumm gunns!

[Missed the point]

Not a problem....I'll agree to disagree with a fellow 2A supporter.

Highlander....I would suggest that you check out www.opencarry.org and check out the Washington State forum. There are some folks up there making great strides in working with local law enforcement on the topic of training bulletins reminding officers that open carry is fully legal.

Additionally, i think you could use Sun Tzu and his thoughts on the principles of war to argue for both concealed or open carry.

[Monty]

Cumm Gunn wrote:

As long as they don't have any public accidental discharges wit der cumm gunns!

And you'd be there for the "mop up" no doubt.

[feedup]

HG Robinson wrote:

What is it with you people and your guns? I wish you were this obsessed about education, ending hunger and poverty, housing for the poor, etc. There are so many worthwhile, positive causes you could fight for.
Personally I think today's gun owners were yesterday's kids who got picked on in high school. I hope caring around a stupid piece of metal makes all of you feel safe and secure.

What is it with your need to defend the rapist, muggers, murders, pedophiles, and all types of criminals?

I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.

[el politico]

I think if everyone or nearly everyone is going to carry, then open carry is better. But if only a fraction of the people are going to carry, then it is better that criminals not know which individuals are armed. So then concealed carry places doubt in their mind. Criminals have said in prison surveys that potentially meeting an armed (potential) target is more of a deterent than the possibility of getting caught.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

el politico wrote:

I think if everyone or nearly everyone is going to carry, then open carry is better. But if only a fraction of the people are going to carry, then it is better that criminals not know which individuals are armed. So then concealed carry places doubt in their mind. Criminals have said in prison surveys that potentially meeting an armed (potential) target is more of a deterent than the possibility of getting caught.

That certainly seems logical. But, I still am for the absolute freedom of personal choice in the matter. And, there is a lot to be said for the visual deterrent factor of open carry. Don't know of too many people that will confront an openly armed person. Of course a lot has to do with how you carry >yourself< as well....

[el politico]

If I had my choice, I would carry openly 99% of the time. I would make an exception for when I have my tux on...

[GunShowOnTheNet]

The following article concerning Concealed Carry is from the New York Times on June 22, 1874:

"...Yet it would be useless to deny the existence of a general feeling in the commmunity that a law against carrying pistols would be a virtual disarmament of the law-abiding citizen, who would obey the statute, for the benefit of the lawless, who would persistently disregard it. That opinion was even expressed by a Magistrate on the bench, and is, no doubt, largely shared by the better portion of the community. Theoretically, the citizen has no occasion for weapons of self-defense. Practically we all know he has, and must at times, in any city however well governed and well policed.

"The objection that such a law as that suggested would be disregarded by the very persons whom it was chiefly designed to reach, is not, of course, logically speaking, a valid objection. The disorderly and dangerous classes defy all laws, and their opposition is not only to be expected, but constitutes one of the chief necessities for making laws at all. Nevertheless, the objection will have weight with many, and may tend to the continuance of a practice which all good men must deprecate, if they do not condemn. The way to meet this argument has already been indicated in these columns. If it is impracticable to forbid the carrying of pistols outright, their sale should at least be so restricted as to furnish a partial guarantee against their getting into improper hands...."

"...Nor need there be any apprehension that the just freedom of the citizen would thereby be infringed. The constitutional right to carry arms..."

And thus we see how that the individual Constitutional Right was PUBLICLY and NATIONALLY ADMITTED, as well as how the subversion started....
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/05/s...