Jump to content
carolina_corpsman

Stores banning open carry

Recommended Posts

I just read that Publics is joining walmart and others in the "no open carry" club and wanted to know, what's up with stores asking/banning "open carry"? How many open carriers have committed mass shootings? Theses same stores generally allow concealed carry so why one and not the other?

Not really a huge proponent of open carry, but I wish it was legal in SC, I just don't know why a 9 mm on your belt that people can see is so much more of a threat than a 9mm on your belt that nobody can see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, carolina_corpsman said:

I just read that Publics is joining walmart and others in the "no open carry" club and wanted to know, what's up with stores asking/banning "open carry"? How many open carriers have committed mass shootings? Theses same stores generally allow concealed carry so why one and not the other?

Not really a huge proponent of open carry, but I wish it was legal in SC, I just don't know why a 9 mm on your belt that people can see is so much more of a threat than a 9mm on your belt that nobody can see. 

I'm not sure they are.  They're "asking people to not carry" which isn't the same as actually not allowing them from carrying. 

38 minutes ago, GoldenSpur7 said:

Open carry in a walmart is a form of attention-whoring.

Truth.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheKOB said:

 

I'm not sure they are.  They're "asking people to not carry" which isn't the same as actually not allowing them from carrying. 

Truth.  

 

I wonder how many Publics operate in states that allow open carry?  Also, open carry is so much more comfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, carolina_corpsman said:

Why though?

Might have something to do with all the mass shootings we have been having. Hard to distinguish between attention whore nutjobs who just want to shop with guns to make a political statement vs. true psycho's who will gun down everyone in sight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Might have something to do with all the mass shootings we have been having. Hard to distinguish between attention whore nutjobs who just want to shop with guns to make a political statement vs. true psycho's who will gun down everyone in sight.  

That's a bit of an emotional rather than rational response but fair enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I hear the idea they they will somehow "shoot the open carry guys first" and I don't really understand it, open carry is legal in many places and I don't know of any time this has actually happened.  I would say the vast majority of potential bad guys are not looking to get into a gun fight, simply the presence of someone who will put up a fight would be enough for them to choose a different mark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seems like a business decision. Like they've calculated that more customers don't want open carry than do. Also identifying threats and discouraging political grandstanding like others have said. If only we lived in a country with a government for the people run by the people instead of one run by special interests we might see them also address the problems were facing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, carolina_corpsman said:

 I hear the idea they they will somehow "shoot the open carry guys first" and I don't really understand it, open carry is legal in many places and I don't know of any time this has actually happened.  I would say the vast majority of potential bad guys are not looking to get into a gun fight, simply the presence of someone who will put up a fight would be enough for them to choose a different mark. 

That's just a guess though. I could with equal validity imagine that open carry would allow a gunman more time to"set up" and pick their targets because it offers de facto camo. Still think this is money driven. As more conservative posters have pointed out, it's pretty flexible language that seems designed to lend itself to interpretation at local branches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 12:14 AM, carolina_corpsman said:

I just read that Publics is joining walmart and others in the "no open carry" club and wanted to know, what's up with stores asking/banning "open carry"? How many open carriers have committed mass shootings? Theses same stores generally allow concealed carry so why one and not the other?

Not really a huge proponent of open carry, but I wish it was legal in SC, I just don't know why a 9 mm on your belt that people can see is so much more of a threat than a 9mm on your belt that nobody can see. 

Not to get into it too much, but a pretty good argument could be made that most every mass shooter has been an open carrier.

Also, given that mass shootings are now a reasonably common event that no one wants to be a part of and that people actually stress over, seeing randos wandering the store aisles with rifles on their shoulders could actually cause a panic. All it takes is for one person to yell "shooter" in a crowded store to send everyone bolting for the door. Cops respond to an "active shooter event" and suddenly your open carry brother or sister is in very grave danger as the police, in an effort to protect the citizenry (and themselves) are prone to ask questions later these days. 

It just ain't a good idea, no matter how safe/empowered/superior it makes the carrier feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gAmkok said:

Not to get into it too much, but a pretty good argument could be made that most every mass shooter has been an open carrier.

Also, given that mass shootings are now a reasonably common event that no one wants to be a part of and that people actually stress over, seeing randos wandering the store aisles with rifles on their shoulders could actually cause a panic. All it takes is for one person to yell "shooter" in a crowded store to send everyone bolting for the door. Cops respond to an "active shooter event" and suddenly your open carry brother or sister is in very grave danger as the police, in an effort to protect the citizenry (and themselves) are prone to ask questions later these days. 

It just ain't a good idea, no matter how safe/empowered/superior it makes the carrier feel.

Statistically, mass shootings are not common events, sorry, the numbers do not support that. 

As to open carry, there have been dozens of cases that I have read of legal open carriers who have the cops called on them by dudley do rights. None of them have been shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, playing semantics with statistical definitions of "common" doesn't undo any of the public trauma that has been done by the events themselves or the increased awareness of them in the information age. The fact that "statistics show mass shooters kill fewer people per capita today than they did 100 years ago" doesn't do much to make someone who isn't an expressed gun advocate feel better about their chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when these events take place in community locations like schools, churches, malls, Wal-Mart, fast food restaurants, sporting events - you know, where regular people actually go quite often.

I get that gun advocates don't necessarily care about other people's feelings on the matter, but the domestic terrorists who commit these atrocities certainly care about them - it's mass fear they're trying to cause, and it's working. Of course they aren't coordinated or networked under a common cause, but they each definitely want to create panic and a long term impression. It's for this reason that gun advocates would be wise to start proposing near term solutions to preventing some of these things instead of simply reacting to them by shouting "don't take my guns."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, gAmkok said:

With all due respect, playing semantics with statistical definitions of "common" doesn't undo any of the public trauma that has been done by the events themselves or the increased awareness of them in the information age. The fact that "statistics show mass shooters kill fewer people per capita today than they did 100 years ago" doesn't do much to make someone who isn't an expressed gun advocate feel better about their chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when these events take place in community locations like schools, churches, malls, Wal-Mart, fast food restaurants, sporting events - you know, where regular people actually go quite often.

I get that gun advocates don't necessarily care about other people's feelings on the matter, but the domestic terrorists who commit these atrocities certainly care about them - it's mass fear they're trying to cause, and it's working. Of course they aren't coordinated or networked under a common cause, but they each definitely want to create panic and a long term impression. It's for this reason that gun advocates would be wise to start proposing near term solutions to preventing some of these things instead of simply reacting to them by shouting "don't take my guns."

Sorry, statistics don't agree on either of your points about mass shooting being common or open carriers getting shot by cops I would be willing to wager they support the theory of every mass shooter being an "open carrier either".

 

Now if people are scared, that is a different argument, however, comfort of one person does not mean the rights of another should be restricted which is what many who advocate for stifling the second amendment seem to suggest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, carolina_corpsman said:

Sorry, statistics don't agree on either of your points about mass shooting being common or open carriers getting shot by cops I would be willing to wager they support the theory of every mass shooter being an "open carrier either".

 

Now if people are scared, that is a different argument, however, comfort of one person does not mean the rights of another should be restricted which is what many who advocate for stifling the second amendment seem to suggest. 

Questions:

Are mass shootings more prevalent today than they were 30 years ago? What do the statistics say? Hell, do they even really happen?

Are mass shootings something that can/should be prevented? How?

Is it possible to preserve the most permissive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and provide public security at the same time? How?

Are there any gun policies besides what we have right now - background checks (spotty), waiting periods (loopholes) - that would be acceptable in the effort to curb gun violence?

 

To be clear, I'm not a gun-banning snowflake libtard whatever-else-they're-called. I think responsible and qualified people should be able to own any number of firearms. But I do think, like cars and airplanes, some oversight and regulation for their use needs to be in place to protect public safety. And if the response to this is "but they are already in place" then they aren't doing enough and need to be adjusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gAmkok said:

Questions:

Are mass shootings more prevalent today than they were 30 years ago? What do the statistics say? Hell, do they even really happen?

Are mass shootings something that can/should be prevented? How?

Is it possible to preserve the most permissive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and provide public security at the same time? How?

Are there any gun policies besides what we have right now - background checks (spotty), waiting periods (loopholes) - that would be acceptable in the effort to curb gun violence?

 

To be clear, I'm not a gun-banning snowflake libtard whatever-else-they're-called. I think responsible and qualified people should be able to own any number of firearms. But I do think, like cars and airplanes, some oversight and regulation for their use needs to be in place to protect public safety. And if the response to this is "but they are already in place" then they aren't doing enough and need to be adjusted.

You realize guns are more regulated than cars or planes right? At 16, I can go to any dmv, take a quick test, get a license that is valid in every sate, then walk down to the car lot, buy a 2000 pound chunk of steel and operate it.  I don't even need any license on my own property, and I can drive any vehicle I want on my own property. I wish it was that simple with firearms. 

Also, what does this have to do with open carry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, carolina_corpsman said:

You realize guns are more regulated than cars or planes right? At 16, I can go to any dmv, take a quick test, get a license that is valid in every sate, then walk down to the car lot, buy a 2000 pound chunk of steel and operate it.  I don't even need any license on my own property, and I can drive any vehicle I want on my own property. I wish it was that simple with firearms. 

Also, what does this have to do with open carry?

LAUGHING MEMES image memes at relatably.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what way are cars more regulated? 


We won’t even go into the ‘more regulated then planes’ portion of your statement. So sticking with cars... just off the top of my head.

- need to get a listened to operate one.
- must pass written and driver test to get license.
- must register car
- can get license revoked / suspended for any number of reasons.
- most states require yearly inspection of cars
- must pay yearly registration fee / taxes
- each car operated has to have a License plate clearly visible that can be traced back to the owner.
- must have insurance on car
- must wear seat belts
- traffic laws to follow.
- regulations involving emissions, safety features, required for every car produced.

What did I miss? I’m sure there are many more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spur's Addiction said:

 


We won’t even go into the ‘more regulated then planes’ portion of your statement. So sticking with cars... just off the top of my head.

- need to get a listened to operate one.
- must pass written and driver test to get license.
- must register car
- can get license revoked / suspended for any number of reasons.
- most states require yearly inspection of cars
- must pay yearly registration fee / taxes
- each car operated has to have a License plate clearly visible that can be traced back to the owner.
- must have insurance on car
- must wear seat belts
- traffic laws to follow.
- regulations involving emissions, safety features, required for every car produced.

What did I miss? I’m sure there are many more.

 

Can you drive a car on school property? 

Can you drive a car on federal property?

Can felons buy cars? 

Can people under 18 buy cars? 

You don't need a license to drive on your own property

There are a whole lot of restrictions on firearms that there are not on cars, and vice versa. Take out the taxes and registrations because that's just a gov. money grab and not a restriction. Also take out all the laws because there are laws to firearms and transporting them.

and still I ask, what does any of this have to do with open carry or the idea that somehow someone else's comfort gives them the right to restrict someone else's constitutional rights/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carolina_corpsman said:

Can you drive a car on school property? 

Can you drive a car on federal property?

Can felons buy cars? 

Can people under 18 buy cars? 

You don't need a license to drive on your own property

There are a whole lot of restrictions on firearms that there are not on cars, and vice versa. Take out the taxes and registrations because that's just a gov. money grab and not a restriction. Also take out all the laws because there are laws to firearms and transporting them.

and still I ask, what does any of this have to do with open carry or the idea that somehow someone else's comfort gives them the right to restrict someone else's constitutional rights/ 

Can you drive a car on school property? In parking lots yes - rest of campus - generally no

Can you drive a car on federal property? On roods and parking lots yes. There are restricted areas.

Can felons buy cars? Sure I guess. Why should they not if they have served their prison term?

Can people under 18 buy cars? Yes - Need License to operate.

You don't need a license to drive on your own property - OK

There are a whole lot of restrictions on firearms that there are not on cars, and vice versa. Take out the taxes and registrations because that's just a gov. money grab and not a restriction. Also take out all the laws because there are laws to firearms and transporting them. Why would I take out anything? There are laws for both cars and guns. The whole point was to compare them. If you just 'take them out" it wouldn't really be a comparison?  Taxes are a money grab sure. But registration has more to it. Like tracking who a car belongs too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...