Do concealed guns belong in stadiums?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

olivernelson
September 15, 2011, 04:05 PM
I'm sure you guys saw the recent story about a guy smuggling a stun gun (and using it) into the NY Jets game this past weekend. Got me thinking, what about real guns? Should people be able to bring concealed weapons into 80,000-seat stadiums?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/do-concealed-guns-belong-stadiums-arenas

If you enjoyed reading about "Do concealed guns belong in stadiums?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
EarlyStarts
September 15, 2011, 04:10 PM
Strange question. You should be able to carry anywhere. Of course in a stadium. Open carry too.

Should you be able to carry a bottle of water in a stadium?

Tallinar
September 15, 2011, 04:35 PM
I can see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to carry into stadiums as opposed to any other public place.

Lawdawg45
September 15, 2011, 04:54 PM
Yes, but as with any other private property the owner sets the rules. Lucas Oil Stadium where our Colts play doesn't even allow off duty LEO's to carry............in theory.;)

LD

357 Terms
September 15, 2011, 05:06 PM
Considering what happened at a L.A. Dodgers game in april, I believe the man who was attacked is STILL in the hospital, I would sa YES!

Loosedhorse
September 15, 2011, 05:11 PM
You should be able to carry anywhere. Of course in a stadium. Open carry too.+1.

Vern Humphrey
September 15, 2011, 05:12 PM
Do concealed guns belong in stadiums?
Do people belong in stadiums?

Do people from time to time, in the most unexpected places, suddenly need to defend themselves?

Guillermo
September 15, 2011, 05:13 PM
Where did that question come from? :confused:

OF COURSE people should be allowed to carry in a stadium.

Luchtaine
September 15, 2011, 05:22 PM
From what I've been told about the law here in Idaho, you can carry until you're asked to leave, so if no one sees it no problem (assuming you have the ccw if it is concealed). The only legal problem you'd have is trespassing if you refused to leave.

Random Discharge
September 15, 2011, 05:28 PM
Some state CCW laws prohibit concealed carry at/in any public venue event requiring purchasing a ticket for admission. Examples would be a movie theater or sports arena. Wise to check your states regulations before doing so. As to the should it be allowed question, I agree it should.

cfrench
September 15, 2011, 05:29 PM
I second what 357 Terms said!!

Scimmia
September 15, 2011, 05:50 PM
I'm sure you guys saw the recent story about a guy smuggling a stun gun (and using it) into the NY Jets game this past weekend. Got me thinking, what about real guns? Should people be able to bring concealed weapons into 80,000-seat stadiums?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/do-concealed-guns-belong-stadiums-arenas

I think the initial question shows the real issue here. Was the problem the stun gun itself or the person who "smuggled" it in the stun gun? IIRC, tasers aren't allowed, but it didn't stop this person from "smuggling" in the stun gun. Honestly, if someone had the intent of tasering a bunch of people, would another rule or law have really made any difference? Tasering a bunch of people was illegal in the first place.

Really, it's an argument FOR allowing concealed weapons into the stadium. Criminals are going to find a way to commit crime, that's what they do. By definition, they don't obey the law, including laws about carrying weapons. Allowing legal concealed weapons allows good, law abiding citizens to defend themselves from these individuals.

351 WINCHESTER
September 15, 2011, 05:56 PM
It's against the law in fl.

Mike1234567
September 15, 2011, 06:10 PM
Dem stadiums is dangerous and should be banned. Yeah, dat's da ticket. Tear down da' stadiums and build more shootin' ranges. Yeah... :D

Plan2Live
September 15, 2011, 07:17 PM
Not trying to be the most interesting man on the planet with my next comment, but, I rarely watch stadium sports but when I do, I prefer to do so from the comfort of my own home. Climate control, reasonably priced adult beverages, clean restrooms, no one jumping up in front of me, no one sloshing beer on me, slow motion, instant replay, multiple camera angles, guys a lot smarter than me explaining the finer points of what's going on, no traffic and last but not least, a lot less likely to get mugged inside my own home. So the bigger question is why would I even go to a stadium? Just sayin'.....

EddieNFL
September 15, 2011, 08:10 PM
Do people from time to time, in the most unexpected places, suddenly need to defend themselves?

That's what the police are for. Besides, if firearms are prohibited in stadiums, there's nothing to fear, right?

Skribs
September 15, 2011, 08:24 PM
I'm not sure about federal laws, but in Washington, you cannot legally have a weapon on you in a bar. Considering how many people like to get a beer at the ballgame...

Mike1234567
September 15, 2011, 09:34 PM
(partial quote) ...clean restrooms, no one jumping up in front of me, no one sloshing beer on me...

Obviously you don't have kids...

357 Terms
September 15, 2011, 09:55 PM
^^ ..LOL!!

harrygunner
September 15, 2011, 10:01 PM
A concealed gun belongs on me.

I did attend a baseball game at Dodgers Stadium with a 1911 in .45ACP in an IWB holster as I chaperoned my daughter and her friends. Same with a music concert in Sacramento, L.A. Auto Show, Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance. Forgot to add Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm.

I'm me whether I have a gun or not. Same with the bad guys. If they want to do harm, they'll figure out a way. I just want tools to stop them from including my family in their plans.

Deaf Smith
September 15, 2011, 10:25 PM
I'm sure you guys saw the recent story about a guy smuggling a stun gun (and using it) into the NY Jets game this past weekend. Got me thinking, what about real guns? Should people be able to bring concealed weapons into 80,000-seat stadiums?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/do-concealed-guns-belong-stadiums-arenas
Oliver,

Do you think the terrorist will stay out of stadiums?

You think hate filled ex-spouses will stay out of stadiums?

Or robbers? Molesters? Insane killers? Gangs?

So what makes a stadium so sacred you disarm everyone except those who don't care if they are caught (or whom they kill?)

And as for those with CCWs, there are already laws against drinking while carrying. Laws against brandishing guns. Laws against murder.

It's not the CCW packers that should alarm anyone. In fact they are a safety mechanism as there are never enough cops around.

Deaf

NavyLCDR
September 15, 2011, 10:43 PM
I'm not sure about federal laws, but in Washington, you cannot legally have a weapon on you in a bar. Considering how many people like to get a beer at the ballgame...

I'm missing the connection there... people like to get beer at Applebees and many, many other restaurants where firearms may be lawfully carried in Washington. What is the argument against self protection being allowed in a stadium? In fact, in Washington state, if a city or county operates the stadium, they are prohibited by state law from banning firearms for CPL holders:

RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

mljdeckard
September 15, 2011, 10:45 PM
Not at all. Stadiums have this consecrated aura of safety which prevents anything bad from happening to people who go there.

Guillermo
September 15, 2011, 11:08 PM
The question wasn't if it was legal. In most places the answer is "no".

The question was "Should people be able to bring concealed weapons into 80,000-seat stadiums?" The answer is "yes"

Nushif
September 15, 2011, 11:37 PM
Concealed weapons should go anywhere people with concealed weapons go.
Private gun ownership is not some activity that only "certain people" in "certain places" do.
In a given crowd of people it makes sense to expect a certain percentile of lpeople to be carrying, but that might just be me. 8)

Mainsail
September 16, 2011, 12:10 AM
If you can't/don't take it with you into the stadium with you, where are you going to leave it, in your car? So the punk kid stealing CDs gets a gun too? Dumb dumb dumb. What about the hike in from the parking lot, and the long walk back after the game?

It's not just your final destination you need to think about.

Lawdawg45
September 16, 2011, 06:39 AM
"It's not the CCW packers that should alarm anyone. In fact they are a safety mechanism as there are never enough cops around."

Well said Deaf Smith, and I think the old saying is "I carry a weapon because a Cop is too heavy";)

LD

msparks
September 16, 2011, 09:39 AM
I go to a stadium about once year or so. I'm in the Guard Band and "have to" play at the Vets day game. I think every single person should be armed at the stadium. What a place it is, bunch of nuts painted up watching people run up and down a field. That can't be right.

The good thing is that we are down on the field level and don't have to mix with them.

The only problem I see being at a stadium is that if you did have to defend yourself getting a clear shot would be difficult.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 10:04 AM
I think it's a harder question than some are giving credit for. Yes, I would like to be able to carry to, at, and from the stadium. However, given the intensity of emotions that are rampant at stadia (particularly with football), I'm glad that a lot of the people in the dome or bowl with me don't have a firearm. I've seen cops break up fights between grown men in stadiums - men who had the financial wherewithall to pay for expensive tickets, and who probably are fairly law abiding in other parts of their lives.

As for criminals not caring about the rules against carrying, that's only partially true, and only partially relevant. Many a fan has walked into a stadium intending to abide by every rule. After a couple of drinks, some disappointing play on the field, and one or more obnoxious fans of the other team being too close to him, however, some percentage of those previously well-intentioned citizens get so angry that they make some really terrible decisions and become hyper-confrontational, or even violent. The inflamation of those passions and aggressions is, after all, part of the appeal of many sports, including football. Now, those fans, in the calm before the game, certainly do care about rules; it's only once they are inebriated and furious that they slip the bonds of society's rules. So, for them, the old saw about criminals not caring about the rules doesn't hold true, or at least isn't informative - they aren't criminals at the time they decide whether to pack.

And, many stadiums have instituted metal detectors and/or other searches; in those cases, the rules are not dependent upon the forebearance of criminals.

I'll put it this way. I probably would not go, at least with my daughter and wife, to a football game where CC was allowed, even if I were carrying. I'm not so worried, after all, about some sort of mugging while standing in line for hot dogs, but about some drunken idiot deciding to shoot at/near/around somebody wearing the wrong jersey, and where those rounds might go. I probably would go to a baseball game, though, where CC was allowed; I just don't see the same level of bloodlust and fan fury there.

All in all, I think it's a business-owner's decision to make. If a football stadium owner wants to say that patrons must cluck like a chicken to gain admitance, I think he/she has that right; I just will choose not to go.

Vern Humphrey
September 16, 2011, 10:14 AM
I think it's a harder question than some are giving credit for. Yes, I would like to be able to carry to, at, and from the stadium. However, given the intensity of emotions that are rampant at stadia (particularly with football), I'm glad that a lot of the people in the dome or bowl with me don't have a firearm. I've seen cops break up fights between grown men in stadiums - men who had the financial wherewithall to pay for expensive tickets, and who probably are fairly law abiding in other parts of their lives.
I would like to be able to carry while driving. However, given the intensity of emotions that are rampant when people are trying to find parking spaces (particularly in downtown), I'm glad that a lot of the people who drive don't have a firearm. I've seen cops interfere fights between grown men in road rage cases - men who had the financial wherewithall to pay for expensive cars, and who probably are fairly law abiding in other parts of their lives.

No one should carry a gun!! Not nowhere, not no how, not no time!!

[/Sarcasm]

valnar
September 16, 2011, 10:24 AM
Would you be okay with other people carrying in stadiums who might be drinking? Heavily?

Hey, just trying to play devil's advocate.

Brett Byers AKA Slow
September 16, 2011, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't buy an NFL ticket! I wouldn't be surprised if they don't start groping crotches and body scanning before entry.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 10:45 AM
Vern, I'm not saying that stadia are the only places where otherwise law-abiding people behave badly. But they seem to behave badly there at a much higher rate than at other places. Have I seen true road rage? (Honking isn't road rage, neither is the finger.) A couple of times. And I live in a place known for difficult traffic. Have I seen stadium violence? A handful of times. I reckon I've spent more a thousand times more time in traffic than in a stadium, and I've still seen more impulse/rage in sporting arenas. That tells me that environment is an explosive one - heck, it's designed to be, and the owners do everything to whip up that emotion.

Setting that aside, your analogy is otherwise logically flawed. Our society does not control who goes onto the roads - they are public. Moreover, we cannot, in any practical sense, control what people take with them on the roads. We do control who goes into a stadium, and can, to some extent, control what they take with them. Thus, we can fairly safely rely on stadium security to prevent harm, not just investigate it after the fact; I think we all agree the same cannot be said about the ability of the police to protect us in advance on the public thoroughfares. Until we have metal detectors at the ends of people's driveways (and, I devoutly hope, we never will), there's just no comparison.

There are also smaller distinctions, such as the level of crowding on a public road versus an athletic venue; a personalized, armed confrontation on a public road poses some risk to third parties. A personalized, armed confrontation in a stadium virtually guarantees injury or death to third parties.

As I said in my initial post, I don't think it's an easy question, on one side or the other. I generally think that, in this society as is, we are better off being able to carry. But I think a football (or hockey) game may be an instance where the risks outweigh the benefits.

Mike1234567
September 16, 2011, 10:51 AM
Not stadium related but...

Road Rage + Gun = Self Defense (This Time) (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Officials-Good-Samaritan-shot-man-he-tried-to-2173543.php)

oneounceload
September 16, 2011, 10:58 AM
Do you think the terrorist will stay out of stadiums?

You think hate filled ex-spouses will stay out of stadiums?

Or robbers? Molesters? Insane killers? Gangs?

How many terrorist attacks on stadiums have there been?

How many angry ex-spouses have attacked their ex at a stadium?

How many robbers, molesters, and gangs have attacked folks at stadiums?

Please cite your sources. Thanks

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 11:13 AM
Actually, 1oz, I think the terrorist point falls mostly on the side of keeping guns out of stadia. A small number of terrorists armed with service-caliber handguns could each kill several victims before even a well-armed (but surprised) citizen could stop them; final score, terrorists 12, good guys 4? Focusing again on the controlled nature of stadium admission, wouldn't it be better to use metal detectors and keep all guns out, except for LEOs?

As for the other points you raise, I think I agree. A stadium would certainly be a bizzarre place for an individual to try to seek out a confrontation with an ex-spouse, what with the tens of thousands of witnesses, hundreds of LEO's, and virtually certain apprehension and conviction.

Skribs
September 16, 2011, 11:22 AM
I think ATLDave said it better than I did. At Applebees, you don't have the raging emotions of being cramped in close quarters with a lot of strangers, and its not the same as being at the game (even if you're watching it). I've never seen a fight break out at Applebees.

Also, in the stadium example, how successful civilian guns will be at stopping a terrorist attack will be based on quantity and luck. If you're on the other side of the stadium, you're out of range with a handgun. Even then, I think 4 terrorists could take down a lot more than 12 people before they're brought down, even if they are close to a CCW. An overpenetrating carbine would be devastating.

Sam1911
September 16, 2011, 11:35 AM
Actually, 1oz, I think the terrorist point falls mostly on the side of keeping guns out of stadia. A small number of terrorists armed with service-caliber handguns could each kill several victims before even a well-armed (but surprised) citizen could stop them; final score, terrorists 12, good guys 4?
I think you made a gross miscalculation. It seems you're arguing that it somehow is BETTER if only the terrorists have guns because the good guys would react slowly. Instead of Terrorists 12, Good Guys 4, consider this:

Final score -- good guys: 4; terrorists: as many as they have ammunition to kill.

Focusing again on the controlled nature of stadium admission, wouldn't it be better to use metal detectors and keep all guns out, except for LEOs? Doesn't seem to be working all that well for TSA. And we all know what a wonderful thing it is to go through airport security these days. You want to put 50,000 (or 110,000 at a big college game) football fans through taking off their shoes and runnng their belongings through the scanners?

As for the other points you raise, I think I agree. A stadium would certainly be a bizzarre place for an individual to try to seek out a confrontation with an ex-spouse, what with the tens of thousands of witnesses, hundreds of LEO's, and virtually certain apprehension and conviction. Seems like a fair number of confrontational violent actors don't particularly care about arrest, conviction, and/or living through the altercation. Some have no problem choosing a public venue. Heck, we've seen some go TO THE COURTHOUSE to attack someone.

From a much more practical and likely standpoint than defense in the stadium seats, most stadiums I've attended or worked near were not in beautiful, peaceful, secure areas of town. I'd be much more happy to take the 1/2 mile walk through the slums, alleys, and decayed industrial sections of town to get from my parking spot to the game with a sidearm on my hip.

Guillermo
September 16, 2011, 11:54 AM
The specific scenario matters not at all.

Doesn't matter what or who the threat is. Be it terrorists, drunken assmaggots, aggressive pigeons or flying monkeys, you should be able to protect yourself...period.



(BTW, the flying monkey is the ultimate game animal:neener:)

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 12:12 PM
Sam1911, your terrorism argument seems to depend on terrorists being able to get guns inside. But there are already a lot of athletic arenas that use metal detectors (often in wand form) to screen people. This isn't theoretical - it's already happening, and it seems to work reasonably well.

The measures are not, and need not be, as intrusive as the TSA measures. Those are heightened for all sorts of reasons, including (IMO) the need for security theater, but keeping even small quantities of explosives out is the big one - that's why you must go through unshod, have liquids in a ziploc bag, etc. Airplanes are pressure vesels, and are therefore thought to be very sensitive to explosives. Even if the explosive shock wave itself only kills the bomber and his seatrow-mate, the risks of explosive decompression or structural damage to the airplane are thought to put the lives of everyone aboard in serious jeopardy. Those concerns aren't present in a stadium.

Nor does the process need to be as cumbersome. Lots of the delay is associated with baggage. Many stadiums have long since barred bags beyond purses - not out of safety concerns, but to make sure that customers are captive to their exorbitantly-priced concessions! If nobody is taking off shoes, and nobody is pulling a laptop out of their briefcase, and nobody is wrestling with how to juggle their ticket, rollaboard, and ziploc of deoderant and toothpaste, security lines move really quickly. So, to return to our scoreboard analysis, using metal detectors has so far resulted in a box score of Staidum Terrorists 0, Good guys haven't need to take the field yet.

As for determined asailants not caring about where they attack, let me suggest that what is possible and what are likely are two different things. Is it possible that someone will choose to stalk someone into a stadium (including paying whatever ridiculous price it costs to get past the turnstiles)? Sure. Is it likely? Not terribly.

On the other hand, is it likely that, if there are 10,000 armed, inebriated fans in 80 big-time-college and pro football stadium every week, it won't take very long for some guy whose team is getting blown out and is being taunted by some <deleted> wearing the other team's jersey to pull out a gun and even pull the trigger? I think it's pretty likely. And the consequences could be catastrophic. After he fires a shot, and all the good samaritans nearby draw down on him, you've now got a wave of gunfire, and neither LEOs nor other armed spectators have any idea who is the wolf and who is the sheepdog. Meanwhile, other spectators are packed closely to every possible target (legitimate and otherwise), and the trampling begins. You could easily lose dozens, or even hundreds just because one <deleted> got wasted and pulled a gun.

To be clear, I'm for letting law abiding citizens carry in their daily lives. But I'm also for letting business and property owners make a reasoned determination that their particular property, and events they hold on them, are exceptional.

SnowBlaZeR2
September 16, 2011, 12:18 PM
How many terrorist attacks on stadiums have there been?

How many angry ex-spouses have attacked their ex at a stadium?

How many robbers, molesters, and gangs have attacked folks at stadiums?

Please cite your sources. Thanks

How many people have attacked you anywhere? Probably none. I can tell you how many people have attacked me, at least on the streets of the US. Not one. Yet I still carry every day. Go figure. ;)

Sam1911
September 16, 2011, 12:49 PM
Sam1911, your terrorism argument seems to depend on terrorists being able to get guns inside. But there are already a lot of athletic arenas that use metal detectors (often in wand form) to screen people. This isn't theoretical - it's already happening, and it seems to work reasonably well.And yet TSA, with all their real AND "theatrical" security measures -- which you've admitted are much greater than any likely to be installed in a stadium -- don't keep prohibited items off planes universally.

So, to return to our scoreboard analysis, using metal detectors has so far resulted in a box score of Staidum Terrorists 0I'm not willing to concede that metal detectors have much if anything to do with the lack of terrorist attacks in stadiums (so far). The causality is implied but not necessarily real. You're putting a lot of faith is systems which don't work very well.

Is it possible that someone will choose to stalk someone into a stadium (including paying whatever ridiculous price it costs to get past the turnstiles)? Sure. Is it likely? Not terribly. How in the world do you know that? We've seen much stranger things happen from the deranged and homicidal.

But this really avoids my much bigger question -- not what happens in the seats (which, like the Giffords shooting, probably is best handled with great restraint on the part of the armed responder), but what happens between the car and the game, and in the alley afterward.

Judging that surely some inebriate will pull a gun and a blood-bath will ensue is the sort of rhetoric used by all the organizations that oppose concealed carry. (Or carry in bars, banks, hospitals, or whatever other "special class" venue.) And yet, it just doesn't happen. Somehow we've proved to be better than that.

---

(As an aside, please mind the language. Abbreviated expletives still are a no-no. Thanks.)

Guillermo
September 16, 2011, 12:56 PM
I think it's pretty likely.

Why would you think that?

Sports bars (all bars) in Virginia had LESS gun violence when they started allowing concealed carry.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/08/15/gun_crimes_in_va_bars_dropped_when_concealed_carry_allowed

The Lone Haranguer
September 16, 2011, 01:00 PM
I'm sure you guys saw the recent story about a guy smuggling a stun gun (and using it) into the NY Jets game this past weekend.
Actually, no. :p But I assume he carried it in there for some nefarious purpose. No mere prohibition or silly sign, short of stopping and searching everyone entering the stadium, is going to stop people like this.

Psa1m144
September 16, 2011, 01:13 PM
We should definitely be allowed to conceal carry in a stadium and everywhere else we go. I carry all day every day, baseball games, movie theaters, restaurants, malls, public events and everywhere else I go. Washington allows us to conceal carry in most places which I do appreciate (but gun laws could always be better!)

KenW.
September 16, 2011, 01:24 PM
A concealed firearm belong on me. If I'm in a theatre, museum, school campus, or stadium. Anywhere I am is exactly where a firearm belongs.

Threats do not stop becuase firearms are banned anywhere.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 01:34 PM
Sam,

First off, sorry about the language. I have to admit, I wondered what you were talking about when I read your reply and had to scroll up to see what I had said. I was worried that I had said something insulting towards you or another poster, and was relieved to see that I had only directed it towards some hypothetical bad guy. Anyway, my apologies; you guys run a tight ship here, and I don't mean to disrupt it.

Second, re: the TSA being less-than-foolproof. Sure, they sometimes let one or another banned item through. The relevant question, though, is how often they let a firearm through, since that's what we're talking about.

Third, I've already acknolwedged that some things are possible, just not very likely. Humans are prone to take extremely unlikely events and treat them as though they were commonplace. The anti-gun crowd is particularly prone to that analytical mis-step. And there's always uncertainty in predicting future behavior of individual human beings. Do I know that individual, pre-meditated assaults of the type you express concern over are not going to happen in stadia? No. In fact, they probably will. Just very, very rarely, and with low cost compared to the mass casualty that would very likely (IMO) arise from having many fire-armed spectators in an athletic venue. I've described above why I think the risks are high of very high casualties at a gun-rich football game. You either buy that line of thinking, or you don't. People think the world works different ways; that's part of what makes discussions interesting.

Fourth, you are quite correct about the transit to/from the game. In fact, of all the times that I have the highest incilination to carry, it's when I'm using public transit to get to an athletic or other entertainment event. Venues are often in parts of town that are borderline or downright rough. Public transit puts you in direct contact with lots of strangers, and means you can't drive away from a problem. A sporting event means that the train or bus or station won't be empty, but it also means that lots of relatively affluent people who are otherwise a little less conveniently located for a monetarily-motivated criminal are literally within arm's reach.

If I were the owner of an NFL team (no more likely than me being the inventor of the tilting-barrel recoil mechanism, I'm afraid), I think I would make a gun-check counter available outside the gates. Any person carrying a firearm on their way to the stadium could tender it to a counter clerk and recieve a reciept, much as we hand our keys to a parking valet. At the conclusion of the event, patrons could retrieve firearms with their reciept, and carry on their way home. This approach would eliminate the crowded venue, impassioned atmosphere risks I think are so serious, and would let a law-abiding citizen carry everywhere except the place where those risks are most present. Those who have an absolutist, no-compromise view won't like it, but it's better than the situation present in almost every big stadium today; it sure beats hiding the gun behind some bushes outside the park and hoping it's there when you get back!

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful and reasoned discussion.

357 Terms
September 16, 2011, 02:13 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/09/nfl-orders-ankles-up-frisks-for-16-million-fans-enterting-stadiums-security-buffalo-bills/1

Something else to think about.

Leverb66
September 16, 2011, 02:42 PM
Do concealed weapons BELONG in stadiums? I say probably not. Should ccw be allowed in stadiums? Sure.

I'm not sure that I would carry in a stadium if it was allowed. Although I might just so that I could defend myself to and from an event. The amount of people in stadiums doesn't allow for very safe shooting. I think I would have a hard time firing a gun in a crowded stadium. It seems the chances of an innocent bystander becoming invovled would be pretty high in a stadium. The mayhem created by drawing a gun in a stadium could be outrageous as well. Obviously, I want to be able to defend myself no matter where I am, but if I was allowed to carry in a stadium it would take the perfect circumstances for me to draw.

NavyLCDR
September 16, 2011, 02:50 PM
So, for those that arfe against having self protection available at a stadium, you would be in favor of the head to ankles frisk?
Here's an idea... make it illegal and against the rules to negligently handle firearms at a stadium, with a punishment enhancement if done while intoxicated... but leave my right to self protection alone.

Leverb66
September 16, 2011, 02:59 PM
So, for those that arfe against having self protection available at a stadium, you would be in favor of the head to ankles frisk?
Here's an idea... make it illegal and against the rules to negligently handle firearms at a stadium, with a punishment enhancement if done while intoxicated... but leave my right to self protection alone.
To be clear I'm not against others having self protection available at stadiums. I think for me, a 'safe' shoot in a stadium would be near impossible. I'd probably like to be able to carry so that I don't have to leave my ccw in the car and walk through potentially bad areas unprotected.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 03:25 PM
Navy, I wouldn't say I'm "against" it, I just wouldn't be very eager to go into a stadium where other fans were carrying.

In a prior post, I had this to say about what I think a good solution might be:
"If I were the owner of an NFL team (no more likely than me being the inventor of the tilting-barrel recoil mechanism, I'm afraid), I think I would make a gun-check counter available outside the gates. Any person carrying a firearm on their way to the stadium could tender it to a counter clerk and recieve a reciept, much as we hand our keys to a parking valet. At the conclusion of the event, patrons could retrieve firearms with their reciept, and carry on their way home. This approach would eliminate the crowded venue, impassioned atmosphere risks I think are so serious, and would let a law-abiding citizen carry everywhere except the place where those risks are most present. Those who have an absolutist, no-compromise view won't like it, but it's better than the situation present in almost every big stadium today; it sure beats hiding the gun behind some bushes outside the park and hoping it's there when you get back!"

It seems as though you are saying that enhanced sanctions might be a solution. My concern is not so much with negligent handling as with impulsive, bad decisions in a highly-charged, alcohol-soaked atmosphere. That kind of thing is not readily deterable - we're already talking about profoundly irrational decision-making.

NavyLCDR
September 16, 2011, 03:38 PM
It seems as though you are saying that enhanced sanctions might be a solution. My concern is not so much with negligent handling as with impulsive, bad decisions in a highly-charged, alcohol-soaked atmosphere. That kind of thing is not readily deterable -we're already talking about profoundly irrational decision-making.

Like someone else pointed out... road rage is becoming more and more common... so is the answer to that to ban firearms for evryone everywhere in public? During my stadium visits, I have never witnessed an incident. I've seen and been the victim of road rage.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 03:42 PM
I responded to the road rage analogy earlier.

I'm not saying that stadia are the only places where otherwise law-abiding people behave badly. But they seem to behave badly there at a much higher rate than at other places. Have I seen true road rage? (Honking isn't road rage, neither is the finger.) A couple of times. And I live in a place known for difficult traffic. Have I seen stadium violence? A handful of times. I reckon I've spent more a thousand times more time in traffic than in a stadium, and I've still seen more impulse/rage in sporting arenas. That tells me that environment is an explosive one - heck, it's designed to be, and the owners do everything to whip up that emotion.

Setting that aside, your analogy is otherwise logically flawed. Our society does not control who goes onto the roads - they are public. Moreover, we cannot, in any practical sense, control what people take with them on the roads. We do control who goes into a stadium, and can, to some extent, control what they take with them. Thus, we can fairly safely rely on stadium security to prevent harm, not just investigate it after the fact; I think we all agree the same cannot be said about the ability of the police to protect us in advance on the public thoroughfares. Until we have metal detectors at the ends of people's driveways (and, I devoutly hope, we never will), there's just no comparison.

Guillermo
September 16, 2011, 03:56 PM
But they seem to behave badly there at a much higher rate than at other places

If we assume that this premise is correct, obviously a logical person would be supportive of the carrying of weapons.

If not that would be like saying "it is ok to carry in the country but not the ghetto where all the crime is"

Totally illogical

Tallinar
September 16, 2011, 04:07 PM
I completely agree with Guillermo.

If the problem is that people are animals and behave badly in certain venues, this only strikes me as an argument in favor of me carrying.

It also sounds like you're asserting that we're the animals, therefore we shouldn't trust ourselves to carry firearms around people. Now I don't pretend to be one that thinks too highly of the human race, but even I will give more credit to the human capacity for self discipline and responsible citizenship than that.

If you can't trust yourself with a firearm for fear that you're going to join some murderous mob when the other team scores, then I agree that you shouldn't carry a firearm.

We should strive to take the high road though. :)

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 04:09 PM
Guillermo, I don't think that's right. People often behave badly at sporting events, and even occassionally come to blows. Real lethal confrontations are quite rare, though, in this country. Why is that? Well, causation is always subject to debate, but it probably helps that there are so many LEOs within 20-50 yards of any issue that arises; that's not at all true in "the ghetto." It probably also helps that most stadia have strong anti-weapon policies, usually with some level of screening (metal detectors, wands, what have you); that's manifestly not the case in "the ghetto."

In my opinion, gun "control" is a generally ineffective tactic for increasing safety in part because it's impossible to enforce throughout all of society. You can't screen people as they leave their house, or as they cross a state or municipal border. That's not true for stadia. In short, not only are the risks greatly elevated in a stadium, the ability to deal with it prophylatically is also elevated. At least that's how it seems to me.

Tallinar
September 16, 2011, 04:19 PM
I don't accept the premise that I'm destined to conduct myself like a raging bafoon at a sporting event. I think your argument begins with that premise, and falls short without it.

xxxstarmaniac
September 16, 2011, 04:23 PM
Altdave,

Just as in theory vs reality, when people disagreed about our rights to carry in a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages, their misgivings were proven to be unjustified.

And as you and others mention Applebees, you have neglected to take into consideration that the very game which you fear attending in person if ccw is allowed is taking place on those tvs floating above everyone's head in the restaurant.

The major difference may be tied to the very real reduction in crime and increase in manners, not just because "others" may be carrying, but because of the ccw permit holders who realize that the firearm is the last thing they want to have to draw upon someone. And just like the case with restaurants, it tends to make any place, including football domes, a level playing field where people will possibly (evidence is ongoing) use restraint. Especially during a dispute that is further exacerbated by that slow motion and close up provided by the tv.

Hopefully no one will get up and begin firing into the crowd because their favorite fantasy football player just ruined his chances of winning for the season. Conjecture such as this is not worthwhile as it can be applied to any event or place - malls, supermarkets, etc.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 04:43 PM
Tallinar, do I trust myself? Sure. The question is whether I trust all the other people at a stadium... Perhaps I think human nature is more malleable and context-dependent than you do. Some men are very, very good, and remain so under all circumstances. Some men are very, very bad, and remain so under all circumstances. Most men are part good, part bad, and behave well or badly depending on the circumstances.

Football games (and other contact sports) are calculated to create an environment where spectators are induced to be "bad." After all, where else do tens of thousands cheer "hit him!" or even "KILL HIM!!!" where the object of their ire has done nothing to them, and is, in fact, nearly always a fellow American? We have as near to Roman blood sport as we want to come, we get gyrating dancing girls, we get fireworks, we get booze, etc. We all get to walk on the dark side just a little bit. And that's fine. It probably helps most of the people in the stadium to stay a little more gentle and sober and rational in the rest of their lives; let off a little steam for 3-4 hours on Saturday or Sunday, be a better person the rest of the week.

But for those 3-4 hours, many of the spectators are worse people than they usually are. They percieve every bad turn of events as the result of incompetence or conspiracy. They don't back down from altercations. They readily take offense from anyone wearing the wrong jersey. Even in this worse-than-usual state, the vast majority still won't cross the line to criminal behavior. But what if .005% will? That's an average of about 3 per NFL game (67,000 avg attendance). This jives, by the way, with the NFL's own average numbers of 3 arrests and 25 ejections per game.

Now imagine that 10% of the spectators are armed. That would mean that, on average, just under one out of three NFL football games every week would have an individual with a firearm who was also breaking the law in a flagrant enough way to get arrested. Given the catastrophic consequences of even one shooting in an NFL game, I think the risks are very, very high.

I've seen cops settle down a lot of unruly football fans. Without guns, the LEOs have a few seconds to get things under control before anybody gets hurt. With guns, the cops have no time at all. Out in the wide world, seconds aren't enough time for cops to respond, and so we have to fend for ourselves. In a football game, LE is much closer to hand and therefore much more effective and fast-responding.

All these factors give me great concern about having serious weapons in the stands at football games.

Edited to add: Just saw your more recent post. My argument is not in any way predicated on you being destined to act like a buffoon. It's predicated on one out of several million of the attendees of football games anually acting like a buffoon. Unfortunately, I like those odds. :(

xxxstarmaniac
September 16, 2011, 04:50 PM
Altdave,

Your statistical math may be off; 67,000 people avg. per game with 25/28 avg causing issues = 0.004% of people are "bad". Then go with your 10% armed and the numbers don't add up.

If the law is changed, just stay at home where you're safe...unless there's a drunk that lost his sport's bet and he doesn't like your team's flag you happen to be flying.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 04:58 PM
xxxstar, you make a valid point. I should say, though, that I was never someone who thought that guns should be banned from bars. I support the right to carry almost everywhere. Well, really everywhere, subject to the rights of the property/business-owner to decide otherwise. (It does bear remembering that the NFL is a privately-owned enterprise, and generally they can set the terms on which they will do business with customers.)

As I've elaborated above, I think football games are a near-unique cocktail of factors that make CC both risky and unneccessary in the game itself. Admission can be effectively screened, thus eliminating the "unilateral disarmament" problem of most gun-free zones (not true of most bars, nor of malls). LE is close to hand, eliminating the "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" need to fend for oneself (not true of many bars, nor of most malls). The dense packing of people makes any shooting, even a justifiable one, extremely dangerous (somewhat present in bars, but to a much lower extent, and greatly reduced in malls except perhaps the days after Thanksgiving or Christmas). The likelihood of a stampede/trampling incident takes the danger beyond the bullets themselves (again, greatly reduced in bars and malls). The atmosphere of a football game is intentionally designed to whip spectators into an emotional fury (people get excited at a bar, but it is NOT the same; no equivalent dynamic is present at a mall).

You also seem to point to the "an armed society is a polite society" line of argument. I generally buy that argument, and it might outweigh all the factors I've laid out above. If some team owne wanted to run his or her stadium open to CC, I'd love to see what data that produced over a period of a few years. I'm just not going to jump into the experiment cage myself and find out!

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 05:03 PM
re: the math. It's possible I missed a digit somewhere, as I picked up and resumed that post about 5 times in the course of making it. I'd go at it this way, though. 3 people currently get arrested per NFL game, and another 25 make serious trouble - those are the league's numbers. If 10% are armed, and being armed doesn't make one any stupider or smarter, better or worse, etc., then that's .3 per game getting arrested with a gun, and 2.5 being thrown out with a gun. Repeat that 100+ times for all the NFL games. Expand it to include all the big time college games. That's a lot of chances for people who are line-crossers to make one bad decision and cost a lot of innocent lives.

As I say, I think it's up to the stadium owner. I just wouldn't put my wife and daughter in the stadium if they want to test my math empirically. ;)

Super Sneaky Steve
September 16, 2011, 05:05 PM
I shouldn't lose my right to defend myself just because I walk into a stadium or any other building.

Vern Humphrey
September 16, 2011, 05:08 PM
Vern, I'm not saying that stadia are the only places where otherwise law-abiding people behave badly. But they seem to behave badly there at a much higher rate than at other places. Have I seen true road rage? (Honking isn't road rage, neither is the finger.) A couple of times. And I live in a place known for difficult traffic. Have I seen stadium violence? A handful of times. I reckon I've spent more a thousand times more time in traffic than in a stadium, and I've still seen more impulse/rage in sporting arenas. That tells me that environment is an explosive one - heck, it's designed to be, and the owners do everything to whip up that emotion.

Setting that aside, your analogy is otherwise logically flawed. Our society does not control who goes onto the roads - they are public. Moreover, we cannot, in any practical sense, control what people take with them on the roads. We do control who goes into a stadium, and can, to some extent, control what they take with them. Thus, we can fairly safely rely on stadium security to prevent harm, not just investigate it after the fact; I think we all agree the same cannot be said about the ability of the police to protect us in advance on the public thoroughfares. Until we have metal detectors at the ends of people's driveways (and, I devoutly hope, we never will), there's just no comparison.

There are also smaller distinctions, such as the level of crowding on a public road versus an athletic venue; a personalized, armed confrontation on a public road poses some risk to third parties. A personalized, armed confrontation in a stadium virtually guarantees injury or death to third parties.

As I said in my initial post, I don't think it's an easy question, on one side or the other. I generally think that, in this society as is, we are better off being able to carry. But I think a football (or hockey) game may be an instance where the risks outweigh the benefits.
Okay -- I agree with you. Stadiums are dangerous places.

So how does it make me safer to be unarmed in such a dangerous place?

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 05:15 PM
Vern, I think I responded to that very point in the post from which your quotation came. But I'll rephrase it: People behave badly in football games, but that's a managed risk as things currently stand. Not only are admissions screened, thus avoiding unilateral disarmament, LE is close to hand, meaning that you don't have to be truly self-sufficient, as you generally must be in the wider world. It's sort of a safe zone for people to be a little bit bad. Throw the guns in, and I think it gets a lot less safe.

Resist Evil
September 16, 2011, 05:21 PM
Is this conversation ultimately just another version of that sentimental favorite "There's Going to be BLOOD Running in the Streets (or stadium aisles, if you'd prefer) If People Carry Guns, Sweet Mama" sing-along song so beloved by the unlibertarians?

There is no place on earth completely safe from harm except the grave. Until I'm completely safe, I'll be having a firearm with me to aid in exercising my natural right to self defense, should the need arise, everywhere I possibly can.

I will fear firearms in stadiums when they spontaneously operate without human input. Until then, I will be wary of people.

Vern Humphrey
September 16, 2011, 05:27 PM
Vern, I think I responded to that very point in the post from which your quotation came. But I'll rephrase it: People behave badly in football games, but that's a managed risk as things currently stand. Not only are admissions screened, thus avoiding unilateral disarmament, LE is close to hand, meaning that you don't have to be truly self-sufficient, as you generally must be in the wider world. It's sort of a safe zone for people to be a little bit bad. Throw the guns in, and I think it gets a lot less safe.
How is it a managed risk?

You, yourself say you've seen fights break out. If it were managed, there would be zero fights.

ATLDave
September 16, 2011, 05:36 PM
Vern, I've seen fights break out. I've never seen anyone carried out in a body bag. The fights are brief, since the cops are usually there in the space of 10 seconds or so. They are also non-lethal, since there generally aren't serious weapons inside the stadium. That's how the risk is managed. (Managed risk is not zero risk. There is no such thing as zero risk.)

NavyLCDR
September 16, 2011, 05:38 PM
Is this conversation ultimately just another version of that sentimental favorite "There's Going to be BLOOD Running in the Streets (or stadium aisles, if you'd prefer) If People Carry Guns, Sweet Mama" sing-along song so beloved by the unlibertarians?

I think that is EXACTLY what this discussion is.

Guillermo
September 16, 2011, 06:16 PM
People often behave badly at sporting events, and even occassionally come to blows. Real lethal confrontations are quite rare

So you say that I should not have the right to protect myself because the chances are I will just be beaten, not shot or stabbed.

Wow.

I guess you think women should just "lay back and enjoy" being raped.

The logic is the same.

Vern Humphrey
September 16, 2011, 06:20 PM
Vern, I've seen fights break out. I've never seen anyone carried out in a body bag. The fights are brief, since the cops are usually there in the space of 10 seconds or so. They are also non-lethal, since there generally aren't serious weapons inside the stadium. That's how the risk is managed. (Managed risk is not zero risk. There is no such thing as zero risk.)
And yet these fights occur, as you say, at every game. Some management!

Pardon me, if I don't buy the line, "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you."

NavyLCDR
September 16, 2011, 06:33 PM
Let's llok at it this way... in states like Washington where firearms ARE allowed in stadiums, in fact MUST be allowed in government operated stadiums, why don't we have gunfights in those stadiums?

MICHAEL T
September 16, 2011, 07:32 PM
NFL I see thinks it the TSA and want every body patted down I think a boycott of their games live and on TV need to be done. I will not be patted down to see a foot ballgame or concert or any place I am paying money to get in. America has became a land of sheep. since 911 Scared of possible terrorist . The terrorist won we lost.

Guillermo
September 16, 2011, 07:59 PM
America has became a land of sheep

sadly that is true

this thread is proof that sad fact even among "our people"

Deaf Smith
September 16, 2011, 08:31 PM
How many terrorist attacks on stadiums have there been?

How many angry ex-spouses have attacked their ex at a stadium?

How many robbers, molesters, and gangs have attacked folks at stadiums?

Please cite your sources. Thanks
http://econ.ucdenver.edu/home/workingpapers/Rees_WP_08-01.pdf

Two-thirds of U.S. Football Stadiums are Located inHigh-Crime-Risk Neighborhoods -- New Study Cites Need for SecurityAwareness.

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law/criminal-offenses-property/6561665-1.html


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6901671/nfl-security-chief-confident-candlestick-park-security

NFL security chief visits Candlestick

"There were also numerous fights inside the stadium, including one man getting beaten unconscious in a bathroom"

But say, if you are claiming there is no crime in the stadiums then why worry about those with legal CCW guns?

Deaf

scaatylobo
September 16, 2011, 08:39 PM
My answer is - there is NO such thing as a " gun free zone " so !!.

I have been to many stadiums over the past 7/8 years and NEVER searched and neither were the tens of thousands of others that were there.

So my answer is HELL YES,carry and pray as always that you dont need it.

Vern Humphrey
September 16, 2011, 08:51 PM
Let's llok at it this way... in states like Washington where firearms ARE allowed in stadiums, in fact MUST be allowed in government operated stadiums, why don't we have gunfights in those stadiums?
There you go again, using facts and logic.

Don't you know that gun control is all about emotion? And the louder, shriller, and more irrational it is, the more likely it is to be accepted?

Mike1234567
September 16, 2011, 08:54 PM
There you go again, using facts and logic.

Don't you know that gun control is all about emotion? And the louder, shriller, and more irrational it is, the more likely it is to be accepted?
The "anti" chant: ***squeeeeck*** ***squeeeeck*** grease me, stroke me... I won't fight back... I'm unarmed.:evil:

oneounceload
September 16, 2011, 09:21 PM
There were also numerous fights inside the stadium, including one man getting beaten unconscious in a bathroom"

Hmmmm, let's see one fight here or there among thousands of games - yep, that paranoia suiting you?

Over zealous fans, momentary highs and lows as scores change, rivalries, ALCOHOL, and guns

What a "winning" combination

Want to carry your gun inside so you can feel like a big man and be safe?- no ALCOHOL SALES

Which route do you think the stadium owners and team owner will take, selling beer/booze for exorbitant profits, or alienating a few folks who are afraid to go anywhere without a gun?

Don't hold your breath

9teenEleven
September 16, 2011, 09:46 PM
Many stadiums are in sketchy parts of town. I would be concerned less with needing it in the stadium and more on the way back to the car.

oneounceload
September 16, 2011, 09:59 PM
Many stadiums are in sketchy parts of town. I would be concerned less with needing it in the stadium and more on the way back to the car.

No argument there, and if they offered a secure locker or similar, no big deal - but too many get caught up in the moment, and fueled by alcohol, adding guns does not mix well

TennJed
September 16, 2011, 10:42 PM
First off let me say I agree that it should be LEGAL to carry. I think people have the right to defend themselve. But as a season ticket holder to a major college football team I would say to everyone if you did and had to use it be prepared for what would follow.

I have been to at least 150 - 200 college football games. Leaving a staduim with 50,000 n-100,000 other people is SLOW going. Imagine what the scene would be like if you had a gunshot go off. Kids would most likely get trampled to death. I have a 3 year old girl. I can't fathom trying to fight a crowd that size in a panic.

There are LOTS of small children around me at every game I attend

There is no way I would carry into a stadium. I would rather be "carried by six" than be a contributing factor in children (and others) getting trampled to death.

Also I am 99.9% sure that I would never need a firearm in any football game I will ever attend. I will take those odds.

Last thing (and I hope I am not offending anyone with this) I am glad I able to use a firearm and have the knowledge to do so. I am also glad I can enjoy life realizing that I do not need a gun at every single step I make. I keep a "beater" gun in my truck that would not be the end of the world if it was stolen. That gives me piece of mind driving to and from the game. Tailgating before and while in the stadium is probably the place where my life is LEAST threatened.

The only hobby/interest I have as much passion for as firearms is college football. If someone pulls a gun and causes a panic at the stadium and my little girl get trampled. I hope that person gets the chair. Don't care who started it.

We have a rights we have to fight for as gun owners. i am behind protecting those rights. As guns owners we have a responsability to be....well responsable. There are just somplaces that guns shold not be used no matter what. 100,000 people in a space of 300 yards by 300 yards is one of them. There are very few places in the country as conjested as a college football stadium. And for the person that will warn me that a thousand armed terrorist could be places throughtout the stadium ready to take us all down. Again I will take those odds.

Hanzo581
September 16, 2011, 10:55 PM
As long as you don't drink sure you should be allowed to carry. They simply don't have enough security in these giant stadiums...by the time security gets to you it is more than likely too late.

Carl N. Brown
September 16, 2011, 11:04 PM
It is not necessarily crime at a venue--stadium, restaurant, concert--that is a cause to go armed for self-defense, but exposure to crime in transit, on the journey to or from. However, leaving a gun in an unattended vehicle does worry me.

razorback2003
September 16, 2011, 11:34 PM
I carry mine when I can get it past people w/o folks seeing and it is legal in the ballpark. I could care less about a business policy. If it gets to the point there are some sort of metal detectors, I won't go because I'm not leaving my gun in the car.

jbrown50
September 17, 2011, 12:27 AM
All of this reminds me of a security exercise at a local stadium that I participated in way back when I was a cop.

Posing as terrorists, it was our job to smuggle weapons past the security personnel at the various gates. Upon our arrival the guards easily figured out who we were and wanded us down quite thoroughly. They even escorted us up to the concourse and then allowed us to go about our merry way with big ole' grins on their faces.

It was absolutely priceless to see the startled looks on their faces as we later arrived back at the gate with the dummy weapons in our hands. We had simply stashed the items into remote areas throughout the stadium during off duty off peak hours. We even bought them in stashed inside vendor's condiment containers.

The misconception is that all you have to do is place a bunch of metal detectors and xray equipment at entrances and that'll keep criminals and terrorists from getting anything in. It's amazing how many gullable people there are who actually think that these measures, taken at these venues, airports, govt facilities, etc., are being done for "their" safety.

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 01:11 AM
the anti freedom people posting here make me want to vomit

Plan2Live
September 17, 2011, 07:08 AM
In my earlier post I tried to nibble around the edges and suggest that watching a sporting event from home is simply more enjoyable. I'll be a little more direct now. Given the high level of emotion and testosterone present at most stadium events, the likelyhood of increased blood alcohol levels, the typically long sometimes dangerous hike in from the parking areas, combined with the physical comforts and technological advantages of watching the event at home all combined make stadium attendence very unappealing to me. I thought one of the main doctrines of concealed carry is avoidance. It seems to me that going to a stadium event is anything but avoidance.

Sam1911
September 17, 2011, 09:50 AM
It seems to me that going to a stadium event is anything but avoidance.


We've had very similar conversations in the past regarding "raves," the club scene, bar-hopping, parties, local young folks' "hang-outs," and even the practice of (to be delicate about it) spending your nights with casual intimate partners you've just met.

Everyone has a balance point somewhere where the enjoyment they get out of an activity is more, or less, compelling than the risks inherent in that persuit.

You are FAR from alone in your feelings about mass-consumption sporting events, but others will admit that they'd never stop attending games, even if they were in considerable danger regularly.

Everyone is different and, to one degree or another, you can't live life hiding from the world. Balance that perspective against the wisdom of not going places where trouble happens. Relax, don't worry, stay vigalent, watch your six! Don't let it get to you -- and don't let 'em GET you! :D

Vern Humphrey
September 17, 2011, 10:00 AM
One point the control freaks have failed to address -- there are many stadiums where people can and do carry.

So why don't we see shootings instead of fist-fights at those stadiums?

Any answers?:p

Sam1911
September 17, 2011, 10:43 AM
Hmmm... I suppose it could be for the same reason we don't see folks shooting each other in drunken rages in those states where it's legal to carry in a bar (even while drinking!).

Much ado about nothing.

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 10:55 AM
Depends on the policy of the stadium owners. Their house, their rules. Suck it up.

Deaf Smith
September 17, 2011, 12:18 PM
Hmmmm, let's see one fight here or there among thousands of games - yep, that paranoia suiting you?

Over zealous fans, momentary highs and lows as scores change, rivalries, ALCOHOL, and guns

What a "winning" combination

Want to carry your gun inside so you can feel like a big man and be safe?- no ALCOHOL SALES

Which route do you think the stadium owners and team owner will take, selling beer/booze for exorbitant profits, or alienating a few folks who are afraid to go anywhere without a gun?

Don't hold your breath
You asked for evidence oneounce. I showed you three links and that was a quick google search.

If you have a CCW you cannot consume ALCOHOL. Kind of against the law. And even with CCW most states allow those how have them to go into restaurants that serve ALCOHOL. And guess what? No gun fights.

Over zealous fans, momentary highs and lows as scores change, rivalries, ALCOHOL, and guns

So at Buffalo Wings here in Texas, a 'sports bar' they have this 'Over zealous fans, momentary highs and lows as scores change, rivalries, ALCOHOL, and guns....." and guess what? No gun fights!

You can have ALCOHOL SALES and guns. Done all the time here in Texas. And guess what... no gun fights.

Deaf

Deaf Smith
September 17, 2011, 12:20 PM
I have some remnant antigunner worries about stadiums. They are loud, noisy, chaotic, and there is a lot of emotion running rampant. What if a brawl breaks out between drunk, enranged gun packers? I know that I am being irrational here, but it's always in the back of my head 'what if some idiot managed to somehow get a permit and bring in something to start a fight?' I have to say that stadium carry ought to be legal.

Yes but do you think those with CCW permits, who CANNOT DRINK alcohol, will be the ones acting like that?

Here in Texas if you have a CHL (a CCW) and if you even break a Class 'C' misnomer (including cussing) you can loose your license.

And that is why CCW holders are way way more law abiding than the general population.

Check the DPS website here in Texas and you will find CHL holders, as a percentage of the population, are very well behaved!

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm


Deaf

Mike1234567
September 17, 2011, 12:51 PM
I can't cuss if I have a CHL? Boy, am I in trouble. I cuss all the time. Not at people in anger... just cuss like a sailor.:D

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 01:00 PM
I think a more likely scenario is a sober ccw getting confronted by an aggressive unarmed drunk during the game. Draw on him and (especially these days) there's a better than even chance you'll get swarmed by everyone behind you and wind up on the evening news as 'gunman captured during game.' Fire the gun at the aggressor and better hope the round doesn't exit his body because if it does, you will almost certainly hit someone else, too, and now you've wounded or killed an innocent bystander. Now you can really kiss goodbye to your life as you knew it, because even if you avoid prison, the civil suit will relieve you of everything you ever had or will have.

A crowded sports stadium is a nightmare firearm self defense scenario. If you're that worried about your personal safety at a football game, stay home and watch it on television.

Sam1911
September 17, 2011, 01:39 PM
If you have a CCW you cannot consume ALCOHOL. Kind of against the law.

Depends on where you are. Remember, there are states where doing so is not against the law -- like here in PA.

Strangely, while it is lawful for our citizens to drink (no limit specified) while carrying, we have no dicernable resultant problems. No blood in the streets, no inebriated shootouts between lawfully armed bar patrons.

Just doesn't seem to be a problem. Somehow we manage to control ourselves.

SnowBlaZeR2
September 17, 2011, 01:59 PM
I think a more likely scenario is a sober ccw getting confronted by an aggressive unarmed drunk during the game. Draw on him and (especially these days) there's a better than even chance you'll get swarmed by everyone behind you and wind up on the evening news as 'gunman captured during game.' Fire the gun at the aggressor and better hope the round doesn't exit his body because if it does, you will almost certainly hit someone else, too, and now you've wounded or killed an innocent bystander. Now you can really kiss goodbye to your life as you knew it, because even if you avoid prison, the civil suit will relieve you of everything you ever had or will have.

A crowded sports stadium is a nightmare firearm self defense scenario. If you're that worried about your personal safety at a football game, stay home and watch it on television.

While I don't agree with you, this is probably the best post opposing my opinion that I've seen in here. If we could all keep it civil like this, without condescending and rude remarks, we might be able to get somewhere.

I don't tend to carry based on being worried about a lawsuit, or someone assuming wrongly what my intentions are. If I pulled my weapon and fired, it would be to save my life. Everything that happened afterwards is something I would live with, as long as I'm living. I made the decision and I'll deal with the consequences of those actions. I understand that some people aren't comfortable with something like that, and I'm OK with that.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of your last statement. I don't believe that my options should be go unarmed or don't go at all. That's how we lose our rights, and I refuse to give into that mentality.

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 03:30 PM
Understand your position, and even have some sympathy for it. And violent confrontations can happen a pro sporting events- witness the guy who was nearly beaten to death at the baseball game in California this summer. My whole issue with defensive pistol in a stadium is in that environment, the background behind your target will be composed entirely of innocent bystanders.

My last statement was not meant to be general one, but only applicable to this particular and unique circumstance. Sorry if it was misconstrued. I should have qualified it that because of the extremely high potential for death or injury to an innocent bystander by using a firearm in a stadium, a non lethal means of self defense would be a more prudent choice. For me, the concern about accidently killing someone's father/wife/son/daughter who was completely innocent of any malice towards me far outweighs any worries about a lawsuit.

Loosedhorse
September 17, 2011, 03:40 PM
My whole issue with defensive pistol in a stadium is in that environment, the background behind your target will be composed entirely of innocent bystanders.Not sure I understand. You are saying that, because a person defending himself from deadly, illegal attack might shoot an innocent by mistake, it would be better that all innocent victims of such assault be denied the most effective tool to prevent their being beaten, stabbed, or even shot to death by the criminal who attacks them?

Let's say your idea of disarming citizens (but allowing them non-lethal weapons like, what, Tasers?) is a good idea. Fine. Let's disarm the police, too, as their stray bullets would be just as hard on innocents as mine would be.Draw on him and (especially these days) there's a better than even chance you'll get swarmed by everyone behind you and wind up on the evening news as 'gunman captured during game.' Fire the gun at the aggressor and better hope the round doesn't exit his body because if it does, you will almost certainly hit someone else, too, and now you've wounded or killed an innocent bystander. Now you can really kiss goodbye to your life as you knew it, because even if you avoid prison, the civil suit will relieve you of everything you ever had or will have.These may be good reasons for the individual person to decide not to carry into a stadium--or, as you said, decide not to go.

It does not follow that it should be illegal for persons to bring their defensive firearms in.

Sky
September 17, 2011, 03:42 PM
Has anyone heard that TSA is going to be the gate keepers or do security at sporting events? "If" that is the case then this thread and thought process is a moot point.

Vern Humphrey
September 17, 2011, 03:46 PM
Quote:
My whole issue with defensive pistol in a stadium is in that environment, the background behind your target will be composed entirely of innocent bystanders.
Not sure I understand. You are saying that, because a person defending himself from deadly, illegal attack might shoot an innocent by mistake, it would be better that all innocent victims of such assault be denied the most effective tool to prevent their being beaten, stabbed, or even shot to death by the criminal who attacks them?
That could happen in any self-defense situation. So your only choice is to allow yourself to be beaten to death.:scrutiny:

nosmr2
September 17, 2011, 03:56 PM
Not trying to be the most interesting man on the planet with my next comment, but, I rarely watch stadium sports but when I do, I prefer to do so from the comfort of my own home. Climate control, reasonably priced adult beverages, clean restrooms, no one jumping up in front of me, no one sloshing beer on me, slow motion, instant replay, multiple camera angles, guys a lot smarter than me explaining the finer points of what's going on, no traffic and last but not least, a lot less likely to get mugged inside my own home. So the bigger question is why would I even go to a stadium? Just sayin'.....

If you were the most interesting man people would watch you in stadiums. But like you, I avoid stadiums and their crowds.

Mike1234567
September 17, 2011, 04:40 PM
I can see both sides regarding hitting an innocent by-stander. However, I'd just be DARNED careful to aim 100 percent or not shoot at all. If you're wondering whether or not I can keep my cool well enough to do this... I once had to shoot a vicious pit bull when I lived in a very close urban environment. I waited until I could get the angle just right and fired one time into the back of the brain while aiming the muzzle upward and away from anyone around me. The beast fell right there. Had it been necessary to take a bite or two I would have.

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 05:00 PM
I see a number of people who seem to be advocating that because I opined that defensive pistol is a bad idea in a stadium, it's a bad idea everywhere. That is not what I said, and not the position I hold.

A stadium is a special case. Very high density of people, any confrontation you wind up involved in will be at eyeball distance, and the bad actor will in all likelihood get the first strike. It is simply a situation where, IMHO, you have to take a hard look at the responsibilities you took on when you got your ccw.

As far as legal/illegal, that's the way the process works. No rights are absolute, it's always a balance. I know right now the owners of Lambeau Field are trying to decide what
to do in light of WI's new ccw law. Many NFL stadiums ban all weapons because of the
cost/benefit, federal law says no firearms on school grounds. Free speech doesn't protect you from being held responsible for defamation. Rights bring with them responsibilities. Welcome to civilization.

Sam1911
September 17, 2011, 05:06 PM
...federal law says no firearms on school grounds... Sort of, with important exceptions, to include lawful, licensed citizens carrying sidearms.

bobbo
September 17, 2011, 05:17 PM
Let's see... 60,000 drunk people crammed into a concrete bowl with a high-energy sport in the middle. Add to that how roughly half (at Buffalo Bills games, more than half, hehe) are rooting for the away team, there are going to be roughly 30,000 people ticked off about the outcome either way. Sometimes sports fans do stupid things after their team loses.

Need some proof?

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2011/04/01/20110401los-angeles-dodgers-fans-attacks-san-francisco-giants-fan.html

I think I'll stay home, doubly so if people go armed...

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 05:58 PM
Sort of, with important exceptions, to include lawful, licensed citizens carrying sidearms.

True, to a point, at least in PA, according to a thread I saw on PAFOA. The case they were discussing was a guy with a ccw permit, who had a gun in his vehicle parked in a school parking lot. Acquitted at trial, but opinion of the lawyer posting in the thread was the further issue carrying concealed on school grounds or in the buildings themselves hasn't been settled as a point of law.

The NFL has a no-firearms policy, but the franchises own the stadiums, not the league, so it's their call. Anyone know of any NFL franchises that allow concealed weapons in their stadiums?

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 06:05 PM
federal law says no firearms on school grounds

I carry legally on school grounds all the time.

Too bad that they aren't allowed on the campus of Virginia Tech

Vern Humphrey
September 17, 2011, 06:11 PM
I carry legally on school grounds all the time.

Too bad that they aren't allowed on the campus of Virginia Tech
If they had been, a lot of lives could have been saved.

I've had people tell me, "You don't know what college students are like" (as if I never went to college.) My response is, "Those same kids can carry legally in Blacksburg, and they don't cause any problems -- what is it about the air on campus that changes them when they come onto college ground?"

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 06:27 PM
I carry legally on school grounds all the Time

Ok, you got me, I should have added 'unless permitted under state law.' :D

VA Tech tragedy *might* have been averted if concealed carry had been allowed, but that assumes that someone carrying was in one of the classrooms. Even in states with little/no restrictions, not everyone chooses to be armed all the time (Texas, jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.) Even so, armed confrontation in a classroom would be a cakewalk compared to a gut to gut shootout while surrounded by 50,000 innocent bullet stops.

Vern Humphrey
September 17, 2011, 06:41 PM
VA Tech tragedy *might* have been averted if concealed carry had been allowed, but that assumes that someone carrying was in one of the classrooms. Even in states with little/no restrictions, not everyone chooses to be armed all the time (Texas, jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.) Even so, armed confrontation in a classroom would be a cakewalk compared to a gut to gut shootout while surrounded by 50,000 innocent bullet stops.

"Might" is what it's all about. We carry because we might be attacked by a criminal. And the evidence is, "might" happens often enough to people with CHLs to put a real dent in violent crime.

Ducman69
September 17, 2011, 06:48 PM
I don't really take issue with certain reasonable limitations on my right to carry.

There are suicidal-crazies/disgruntled people that want to take as many people with them as possible (and its not impossible for them to get a CHL if one is even required in the state), and that is a realistic even if improbable liability in such a densely crowded environment. Banning all fire-arms is legal on private property (it can be as arbitrary as banning my right to bring in a coca-cola can), and would seem to be easier to enforce than allowing some in and some not with a metal detector and security know that anyone with a firearm print is "bad".

Legal use of a firearm in self-defense in such a crowd is also a public health risk as:
1) A loud gunshot is likely to create a panic which with hard concrete steps can mean people could get seriously injured.
2) The public is huddled so close together that errant shots in self-defense are in fact likely to hit little women and children.

Thus the liability IMO outweighs the benefit, and I wouldn't even allow most security guards to carry more than tazers, and its just a totally different aspect from a balance against government by empowering the people in general with a right to bare arms and home defense or carjackings/muggings on empty streets at night.

Vern Humphrey
September 17, 2011, 06:54 PM
I don't really take issue with certain reasonable limitations on my right to carry.
Let's quantify "reasonable."

There are stadiums where people can legally carry. In those stadiums, how many times has that a "realistic even" occurred "in such a densely crowded environment?"

Ducman69
September 17, 2011, 07:13 PM
There are stadiums where people can legally carry. In those stadiums, how many times has that a "realistic even" occurred "in such a densely crowded environment?"
Probably as many times as a CHL owner has lawfully shot someone in self-defense in those stadiums.

It would only take one time for a CHL holder firing off rounds to cause a crowd panic response where someone is trampled or shoots some eight year old girl behind the attacker to do serious long-term damage to the public image of firearm advocates and possibly even create a serious knee-jerk reaction from politicians in the ensuing public spectacle that would create in the media frenzy.

So combined with the fact its private property, I don't personally think the benefit outweighs the liability under that very specific circumstance.

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 07:16 PM
"Might" is what it's all about. We carry because we might be attacked by a criminal. And the evidence is, "might" happens often enough to people with CHLs to put a real dent in violent crime.

True, though I would phrase it that the fact of CHL causes criminals to modify their behavior, and so puts a dent in violent crime. I know about the estimates, etc.

But the discussion here is about one specific circumstance, concealed carry in a stadium. You have an unnaturally high population density, a statisically very low incidence of most violent crime (drunken fist fights cover just about everything), and a very, very high police presence. In my mind, that very specific circumstance is not a compelling argument for concealed carry. If you feel differently, fine, but I would not be surprized if the stadium owner comes to a different conclusion.

Even if the guy assaulted at the Dodgers game had been armed, it wouldn't have made a difference. My recollection is he was jumped from behind in the crowd and was taken down before he had a chance to resist. CHL owner sees an assault and intervenes to stop it? Maybe... But if the stadium doesn't weapons check it's just as likely now that the bad guy *and his friends* are also armed. And now it's you and them, slinging lead with 50,000 other people in the room.

Sam1911
September 17, 2011, 07:21 PM
True, to a point, at least in PA, according to a thread I saw on PAFOA.Right, but that's an issue of State law, as you indicated later.

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 07:36 PM
I don't understand the "logic" behind the idea that because people behave badly and sometimes violently at stadiums, that is a reason to NOT be armed.

Using that logic...there is no reason to be armed anywhere dangerous.

Sarah Brady would be proud.

I am sick to my stomach.

Vern Humphrey
September 17, 2011, 08:06 PM
But the discussion here is about one specific circumstance, concealed carry in a stadium. You have an unnaturally high population density, a statisically very low incidence of most violent crime (drunken fist fights cover just about everything), and a very, very high police presence.
What we have is the old, tired argument that "You can't carry a gun because I think you might misuse it."

So once again, what is the incidence of misuse?

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 08:20 PM
"You can't carry a gun because I think you might misuse it."

EXACTLY!!!

I can see Chuck Schumer making that exact argument

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 08:29 PM
I don't understand the "logic" behind the idea that because people behave badly and sometimes violently at stadiums, that is a reason to NOT be armed.

I believe you are misinterpreting. The incidence of most violent crimes in stadiums is essentially nonexistent. Assault is most of it and the vast majority of those is bad language and shoving. Life-endangering violent crime is very, very, very rare. It's also one of the rare occasions where you can get a police response within seconds. And everyone is packed in elbow to elbow.

Firearms are effective tools for protection/defense at a distance. In a stadium you will not have distance. You will only know the aggressor is an aggressor when he is already in your face. If you draw to deter someone you *think* is an agressor while they are still at distance, *you* will be the aggressor/man-with-a-gun to everyone else who sees it.

Pull a gun in a stadium, cause a panic, kids get trampled and injured, you'll be getting Christmas cards from Sarah Brady.

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 08:34 PM
The incidence of most violent crimes in stadiums is essentially nonexistent

I thought the logic was that people behave badly, that is why I should not be able to carry a gun there.

But have it your way. People behave WELL in stadiums so I should not be able to protect myself...

Either way it is silly

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 08:42 PM
Pull a gun in a stadium, cause a panic, kids get trampled and injured, you'll be getting Christmas cards from Sarah Brady

With that logic cops should not be armed in stadiums

merlinfire
September 17, 2011, 08:52 PM
Anywhere there's people, you may need a gun.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 09:08 PM
With that logic cops should not be armed in stadiums

If a cop needs to pull a gun in a stadium, the panic is already underway. Local news this summer had a belligerent drunk at a baseball game. He was so drunk the tazer didn't work, they took him down with nightsticks. Only injury was to the actor, and he didn't feel it for hours.

Cops are pros, they train for these circumstances. They have a variety of options they use in preference to firearms in that circumstance. Noone is saying you can't protect yourself, I would strongly suggest you take stock of how you protect yourself, and prepare accordingly.

I personally have a walking stick/cane I carry in places where I deem a firearm is not appropriate. Never raised an eyebrow, and it's a very effective weapon at close quarters. I also have defense sprays and knives, and carry them either singly or in combination, depending on the circumstances. I take my personal defense seriously, and there's a lot more to it that just tucking a pistol into an IWB holster.

Sorry if my attitude upsets your tummy, try some Pepto Bismol, you'll feel better in no time.

TennJed
September 17, 2011, 09:41 PM
The panic issue is the biggest thing for me. Very few places are as densely populated as a football stadium. I cannot imagine a realistic situation where I would feel comfortable shooting a gun in such an environment

If I shoot first I cause a panic. If I shoot after the first shot I am shooting into a panicked crowd

My life is not worth killing innocent people. Bury me first

For me carrying is about more than carrying. I am not bringing a gun unless I am willing to use it. Some people seem to be more concerned with keeping a gun on their hip than they do in actually using it.

Weather or not it should be legal. I guess it should. I don't like infringement laws. But because something is legal doesn't make it the responsible choice.

Make it legal but if someone cuts your throat with a beer bottle and you shoot him and create a panic where innocent people get killed you should be charged with murder

Guillermo
September 17, 2011, 09:45 PM
I cannot think of a situation where a cop should be armed and I shouldn't.

As to the silly premise about cops and their "array" of options...that is not to protect themselves. They have the responsibility to look for trouble. I am concerned with protecting myself.

Sorry if my attitude upsets your tummy, try some Pepto Bismol
Anti freedom people always churns the belly but I do thank you for the suggestion and well wishes for gastrointestinal peace. I will respectively go another direction. I think I will pop a cork on some Severed Head Red.
http://www.spellwine.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=SWSHRED06

It seems appropriate when contemplating unarmed people, trapped in a concrete arena.

TennJed
September 17, 2011, 09:59 PM
Lots of anti freedom people of gun message boards?? That's a new one to me.

I am concerned with protecting myself but I would rather die than cause the death of innocent people. I could not live a happy life knowing I did that. If that make me Anti freedom to some then so be it. But being raised a good southern Christian I like to call it pro honorable

On a side note I read a study that using over reacting highly embellished vocabulary causes stomach problems.

jbrown50
September 17, 2011, 10:02 PM
If a cop needs to pull a gun in a stadium, the panic is already underway. Local news this summer had a belligerent drunk at a baseball game. He was so drunk the tazer didn't work, they took him down with nightsticks. Only injury was to the actor, and he didn't feel it for hours.

Cops are pros, they train for these circumstances. They have a variety of options they use in preference to firearms in that circumstance. Noone is saying you can't protect yourself, I would strongly suggest you take stock of how you protect yourself, and prepare accordingly.

I personally have a walking stick/cane I carry in places where I deem a firearm is not appropriate. Never raised an eyebrow, and it's a very effective weapon at close quarters. I also have defense sprays and knives, and carry them either singly or in combination, depending on the circumstances. I take my personal defense seriously, and there's a lot more to it that just tucking a pistol into an IWB holster.

Sorry if my attitude upsets your tummy, try some Pepto Bismol, you'll feel better in no time.
Exeter,

Cops carry guns too. They somehow muster enough intelligence to know not to use their firearm in certain situations. Are you saying that a legally armed citizen doesn't somehow possess that same intelligence?

Is it you who doubts your ability to make the right decision in a crowded venue therefore you assume that all other citizens lack that ability as well? Have you ever carried your concealed weapon into a crowded mall or restaurant?

I think you grossly underestimate the strong desire that law abiding gun owners have to avoid doing something stupid with their firearm.

jbrown50
September 17, 2011, 10:39 PM
I am concerned with protecting myself but I would rather die than cause the death of innocent people. I could not live a happy life knowing I did that. If that make me Anti freedom to some then so be it. But being raised a good southern Christian I like to call it pro honorable

On a side note I read a study that using over reacting highly embellished vocabulary causes stomach problems.

TennJed,

If you lack the discipline to know not to deploy your legally carried firearm when it would pose a danger to other innocent people then maybe 'you' shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. It's not for everyone.

TennJed
September 17, 2011, 10:46 PM
you lack the discipline to know not to deploy your legally carried firearm when it would pose a danger to other innocent people then maybe 'you' shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. It's not for everyone. it has nothing to do with discipline or knowledge. If you read all my post you would know I attend a lot of college football games so I know the environment very well. I have zero use for a firearm in a football stadium. Zero use. That has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge or discipline.

I have never carried my fishing rod to a mall parking lot either. It is not because I am not knowledgable with a Abu Garcia it is because I don't plan on fishing from my car.

As matter of fact I take pride in only carrying in place I have a use for. At this moment the ONLY place I feel I have no use for one is a football stadium.

Again I pride myself on not carrying just to say I am carrying. Why carry a
firearm to a place I an not willin to use it at?
Would it make me cooler? For you to suggest I
am not disciplined to carry means you have not read my post on this thread

I got no problem with it being legal to carry in a stadium. I see no use for it though and would choose not to. If you do that is fine I do believe it is your right to. Just consider the consequences of using one in that environment.

It is hard enough leaving the stadium in an ordeally fashion with my three year old.

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 11:07 PM
Exeter,

Cops carry guns too. They somehow muster enough intelligence to know not to use their firearm in certain situations. Are you saying that a legally armed citizen doesn't somehow possess that same intelligence?

Is it you who doubts your ability to make the right decision in a crowded venue therefore you assume that all other citizens lack that ability as well? Have you ever carried your concealed weapon into a crowded mall or restaurant?

I think you grossly underestimate the strong desire that law abiding gun owners have to avoid doing something stupid with their firearm.

I tried to make it clear that I have been responding to the original question in this thread, concealed guns in stadiums. Even a crowded mall or restaurant doesn't come close to packing people in like a stadium. The former two also are unrestricted access and have a low security presence.

Many of the posters objecting to my posts seem to be advocating opening up stadiums (I believe one poster wanted to boycott the NFL until they stop banning firearms.) The issue I have with that attitude is it doesn't open the stadiums to just law abiding gun owners, who, I agree, have an exceptionally good track record and are not the problem. If you stop the security checks, you lose the ability to control the non-law abiding, and you are in a venue where the ability of law abiding gun owners to protect themselves without endangering others is severely inhibited. Put another way, someone was worried about drunken Bubba with a broken bottle... will letting drunken Bubba bring in his unpermitted gun make you safer?

And before hysteria sits in and people start screaming 'Police State, then! Metal detectors on every corner!' I said clearly earlier that rights and responsibilities involves balance... and now I'll bring up the c-word, compromise ( argh, gasp, sounds of retching.) I can't really think of another circumstance that has the same unique combination of factors as a stadium. Treating a packed stadium differently doesn't open up a slippery slope or herald the Beginning Of The End.

BTW, cops and armed citizens is an apples and oranges comparison. Cops are trained to a degree citizens are not, and they live it every day, gaining experience that private citizens do not have. The cops are at the stadium watching for trouble. You are there to watch a game. I will reiterate, a stadium is a unique situation, unique enough that I don't have a problem with letting the pros handle security. Malls, restaurants, completely different situation.

jbrown50
September 17, 2011, 11:32 PM
BTW, cops and armed citizens is an apples and oranges comparison. Cops are trained to a degree citizens are not, and they live it every day, gaining experience that private citizens do not have. The cops are at the stadium watching for trouble. You are there to watch a game. I will reiterate, a stadium is a unique situation, unique enough that I don't have a problem with letting the pros handle security. Malls, restaurants, completely different situation

That's right. A regular ole' citizen isn't a cop and isn't tasked with the duties of a cop so that citizen doesn't need the same training as a cop. All that citizen needs to know is when and when not to use his/her firearm for self defense.

What exactly makes a crowded stadium any different than a crowded mall, restaurant, park, etc.?

TennJed
September 17, 2011, 11:50 PM
What exactly makes a crowded stadium any different than a crowded mall, restaurant, park, etc.?


A lot actually. Take the game I was at this Thursday night. (MSU vs LSU) the section my family sits in holds over 7,500 people. (56k+ in the whole stadium) It had more than capacity in that section.

There are 10 ramps leading into the seating area. This ramps are less than 10 feet wide.

Thats over 750 people ramp. This is in the upper deck. There are 2 larger ramps (30 or so feet across) and 2 elevators leading to the bottom.

The game was close and most people stayed to the end. It takes a long time for everyone to file out of the stadium when everyone is in an orderaly fashion. It takes me evry bit of 20 minutes to get from my seats to the outside gate of the stadium. And that is going as fast as I possibly can because we lose more than we win and I am not in a joyous lingering mood! ;) At this point I have a 10 min walk through a family enviroment that I have never been threatened in 30 years to get to my truck. In my truck is either a 9mm or a 357 for the drive home.

People would get hurt if a firearm was discharged in this stadium just from the panic that it would create.

This is my point. Stadiums are unlike any enviroment that I am aware of (I am sure there are others but I can't come up with one now).

I am not for making it illegal to carry in one but I do think it is pointless and is actually irresponsible to do so. If you are not going to use why carry it? At the very least the guy sitting next to me might spill his soda on my lap and now I have a sticky gun. At the worst I could be injured in a panic situation and my fireare taken from me if I am knocked unconciences. I honestly think a stadium enviroment would be more suitible for a stun gun or taser. (or a gun with a silencer:D).

Trust me a stadium is a LOT different than a mall, resturant, or park

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 11:52 PM
What exactly makes a crowded stadium any different than a crowded mall, restaurant, park, etc.?

First part of my post. Population density, control of access from the outside, and security presence. In a stadium, you have 50,000 to 80,000 people seated as densely as on an airliner. Access is through clearly defined points where checks for restricted items can be easily done. Security presence is high and there is a high proportion of professional LEO. Not the same as a mall, park, or restaurant.

Exeter
September 17, 2011, 11:57 PM
I think I will pop a cork on some Severed Head Red.
http://www.spellwine.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=SWSHRED06


Looks good, I salute your choice, sir. My palate, alas, in less sophisticated: New Castle Brown.

jbrown50
September 18, 2011, 12:25 AM
First part of my post. Population density, control of access from the outside, and security presence. In a stadium, you have 50,000 to 80,000 people seated as densely as on an airliner. Access is through clearly defined points where checks for restricted items can be easily done. Security presence is high and there is a high proportion of professional LEO. Not the same as a mall, park, or restaurant.


And how does this guarantee your personal safety?

NavyLCDR
September 18, 2011, 12:45 AM
As Sam1911 has pointed out so eloquently....

In states that don't require licenses to carry firearms concealed or openly - there is no blood running in the streets.

In states that don't require training to obtain a concealed permit/license - there is no blood running in the streets.

In states that allow firearms in bars - there is no blood running in the streets.

In states that allow people to consume alcohol while carrying a firearm - there is no blood running in the streets.

In states that allow 18 year olds to carry firearms - there is no blood running in the streets.

In states that allow people to carry firearms in stadiums - there is no blood running in the streets.

Is there a pattern here?

To me, this whole discussion about where a person should be able to possess a gun would be like car keys. People get injured/killed by drunk drivers every year... so we should make it illegal to drink alcohol and be in possession of car keys, right? Or we should make it illegal to possess car keys in any place that serves alcohol, including stadiums, right?

Shoot66
September 18, 2011, 01:14 AM
Carring in a stadium is illegal in my country as well as in some other EU states.

harrygunner
September 18, 2011, 02:52 AM
After the Virginia Tech attack, I did what physicists do and estimated the number of people that would have been legally carrying on campus if it were allowed.

I came up with at least twenty.

I considered the 9000 people on campus, the percentage of CCW holders in Virginia, number of people between the ages of 21 and 65, the probability of wanting a permit for people under and over the age of 40, the percentage of people on campus old enough to apply for a permit and percentage of permit holders that would actually have a gun.

No way to guess who many were near the building or how they would have handled themselves.

It would nearly scale. A stadium with 80,000 people (but with a different age mix) could have a couple of hundred CCW holders carrying.

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 09:52 AM
And how does this guarantee your personal safety?

It doesn't, any more than having the gun guarantees your safety. There are no absolutes in life, you are always vulnerable to something. Fact. Anything else is an illusion. The stance I am taking is that in a stadium environment, you have to balance your feeling of personal safety with the potential collateral damage you can cause should you exercise that particular option. The balance I see is: gain in additional personal security from having a firearm in a stadium, very minimal. Potential for harm to innocents should weapon be deployed, extremely high.

To me, this whole discussion about where a person should be able to possess a gun would be like car keys. People get injured/killed by drunk drivers every year... so we should make it illegal to drink alcohol and be in possession of car keys, right? Or we should make it illegal to possess car keys in any place that serves alcohol, including stadiums, right?

I don't really buy your analogy. It's true from the angle that car keys are not a problem to a drunk. They are a problem (a very big problem) if they are deployed. In that case, a drunk behind the wheel is an immediate menace to public safety and subject to arrest anywhere in the country. Similarly a concealed firearm that stays concealed is not a problem anywhere. It is also not protecting you. You may feel more protected, but in point of fact, a firearm can only protect you when it is deployed. Deploy the firearm in an environment as crowded as a stadium, and you inherit a huge number of adverse outcomes, 'way beyond the immediate threat to your person.

I'll say again, a stadium is a unique environment. The potential threats to your person are much lower, the number of alternative ways to protect yourself are much greater, and the potential liabilities of a firearm in that environment are many orders of magnitude greater than you will have almost anywhere else. The attitude of 'I'm going to protect myself at all costs and I don't care how many people around me are killed or injured when I do it' falls rather short of the standard I have set for myself for responsible gun ownership.

I don't have a problem if the stadium owner opens the gates and does no weapons check. It's his right to make that decision. On the other hand, I can also see if he chooses to not allow weapons, and I respect his right to make that decision, too.

Guillermo
September 18, 2011, 11:24 AM
My palate, alas, in less sophisticated: New Castle Brown

nothing wrong with that fine brew. In the cooler months I enjoy those as well.

now if you would just embrace the concept that we CCLs are more not a problem...in fact we are less likely to cause a problem than policemen that can go virtually anywhere with a plethura of weapons.

(See post 140)

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 12:44 PM
now if you would just embrace the concept that we CCLs are more not a problem...in fact we are less likely to cause a problem than policemen that can go virtually anywhere with a plethura of weapons.
(See post 140)

Never said CCLs were a problem, only said a firearm was not a good choice for a stadium. Too much potential for collateral damage for me, you may feel differently, and I'm ok with that. In the case where trouble erupts in a crowded stadium I'd rather leave it to the police to do violence on my behalf... it is, after all, their job to seek out trouble, and deal with it.

But we can agree to disagree on that point, because we both acknowledge that the potential for a problem is extremely low in any event. I'm certainly not going to avoid a stadium that permits concealed carry, and I'm not going to avoid one that does a weapons screen. And I'll certainly respect your right to make your own decision.

That said, looking forward to peaceful Sunday afternoon, where the only mayhem is on the field.

Cheers.

Guillermo
September 18, 2011, 12:48 PM
so I should not carry because the instance of violence is low?

what about driving to and from the stadium?

your method has my gun vulnerable to smash-and-grab or me unarmed.

we all have thought about "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios. u should trust us to make that decision.

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 01:04 PM
Second paragraph, My post #145. I think I addressed your questions.

Guillermo
September 18, 2011, 01:31 PM
actually we didn't agree that the instance of violence is low...I merely accepted the premise for the point of discussion.

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension because I don't glean anything concerning travel to and fro or leaving a weapon in a car. Or for that matter, that any reason why I should not be allowed to carry.

Vern Humphrey
September 18, 2011, 02:33 PM
TennJed,

If you lack the discipline to know not to deploy your legally carried firearm when it would pose a danger to other innocent people then maybe 'you' shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. It's not for everyone.
Let me add to that -- people who lack the discipline to effectively and safely use a firearm shouldn't project their inadequacies onto the rest of us.

I am reminded of a passenger on a military flight who said we shouldn't have parachutes, because "I could never jump."

My response to that was, "I can. So if anything goes wrong, I'm going out that door, and you can enjoy the ride down."

jbrown50
September 18, 2011, 02:45 PM
The stance I am taking is that in a stadium environment, you have to balance your feeling of personal safety with the potential collateral damage you can cause should you exercise that particular option. The balance I see is: gain in additional personal security from having a firearm in a stadium, very minimal. Potential for harm to innocents should weapon be deployed, extremely high.

A stadium environment? what's that? How's that different from you carrying a gun in any other crowded environment? ie; a crowded mall, restaurant, park, concert, etc.? And don't give me that same tired old argument about security, access points and LEOs being present. That 's in place to satisfy liability requirements, not for your personal safety.

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 02:52 PM
actually we didn't agree that the instance of violence is low...I merely accepted the premise for the point of discussion.

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension because I don't glean anything concerning travel to and fro or leaving a weapon in a car. Or for that matter, that any reason why I should not be allowed to carry.

That's because travel to and from stadium, etc. is not an issue. You have a CHL, you can carry no problem. Apparently your situation is that your stadium does a weapons check... sorry if I sound confused because I thought a couple of people said that some stadiums do allow concealed carry. How would you handle traveling to an airport? My understanding of what you're saying is that you want no restrictions on concealed carry, so you never have to deal with the issue of moving from a legal to a prohibited area. It's ok to feel that way, but it's not the way things are, and my reply would be that your personal defense plan should be set up to deal with that reality. You are of course free to work to change things, and I would encourage you to do so.

I asked in general earlier, but didn't see a response, I thought a couple of posters said it was legal to carry concealed at their stadiums. Would someone mind posting which stadiums those are?

Vern Humphrey
September 18, 2011, 02:56 PM
My understanding of what you're saying is that you want no restrictions on concealed carry, so you never have to deal with the issue of moving from a legal to a prohibited area. It's ok to feel that way, but it's not the way things are
It is no sin to recognize how things are, while working to make them as they should be.

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 03:12 PM
It is no sin to recognize how things are, while working to make them as they should be.

On that, we can agree.

TennJed
September 18, 2011, 03:38 PM
Let me add to that -- people who lack the discipline to effectively and safely use a firearm shouldn't project their inadequacies onto the rest of us.

I am reminded of a passenger on a military flight who said we shouldn't have parachutes, because "I could never jump."

My response to that was, "I can. So if anything goes wrong, I'm going out that door, and you can enjoy the ride down."

Hey Vern (i used to love those movies..anyway) for the folks here that keep wanting to imply that I am not capable of carrying a firearm ...PLEASE actually take the time to read my posts. I assume you can read and comprehend since you were capable of filling out the proper paperwork for a carry permit.

I am not trying to me agrumentative of disrespectful (and I do not want this thread to get locked) but I am insulted when people assume things about me without taking the time to read what I have said.

I NEVER stated that someone else should not be allowed to carry in a stadium. I said it should be legal. I did state why I would not carry myself and why I do not think a firearm should ever be used in a stadium. I personaly rather not carry into an enviroment that I would not use. At this point in my life a stadium is the only enviroment I feel this way about. If you want to carry thats fine with me...please keep in consideration the consequences of discharging a firearm in that enviroment though. And I am sure 99% of the people here would keep that in consideration.

Also let me add that people who lack the disccipline to effectively read and comprehend post then maybe that should not be on message boards. It is ok though, internet forums are not for everyone.;)

ATLDave
September 18, 2011, 04:46 PM
One point the control freaks have failed to address -- there are many stadiums where people can and do carry.

So why don't we see shootings instead of fist-fights at those stadiums?

Any answers?:p

I haven't seen any control freaks here, except to the extent that anyone except an absolutist is a "freak." But setting aside the name calling, you raise what could be an interesting data point. What are the stadiums where CC has been allowed? If there are a lot, and it has gone on for a while without incident, then that would go a long way towards resolving my doubts.

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 05:06 PM
I haven't seen any control freaks here, except to the extent that anyone except an absolutist is a "freak." But setting aside the name calling, you raise what could be an interesting data point. What are the stadiums where CC has been allowed? If there are a lot, and it has gone on for a while without incident, then that would go a long way towards resolving my doubts.

Seconded.

Loosedhorse
September 18, 2011, 05:25 PM
The "No guns in stadiums" folk seem to rely on three arguments:

1. Stadiums are unique in their population density. I would say, no they are not. If you have been in a NYC sidewalk or subway (car, platform or entrance/exit) at rush hour; or at the mall near Christmas, you have seen the same density.

But even that does not matter: all you need is a few people behind an attacker to create the high probability that a miss or a pass-through will cause innocent injury; so any additional density at a stadium doesn't substantially alter that risk. The innocents don't have to be a hundred deep: a small crowd at a bus stop is functionally the same.

2. Legally armed private citizens in stadiums cause a special risk that armed LEOs do not. I'll leave this one without comment; I suspect one either believes this, or one doesn't, and that it is not changeable by argument.

3. There is no need for a gun at a stadium. Again, if that's true, then there's no need for an LEO to have one there either.

Are all stadiums equally safe? Are you equally (and completely) safe everywhere in a stadium? When you go to the bathroom? When you leave? What about on the way home; or when you arrive home? (Some will say that both you and your gun are perfectly safe if you leave your gun in your car while it's in stadium parking or parked nearby.)

Most importantly, some have implied that because they believe carry into a stadium doesn't make sense, it should be illegal; and I strongly disagree.

Others, like TennJed, have instead argued why we should voluntarily enter a stadium unarmed. So far I disagree, but I nevertheless appreciate and respect their opinions and advice.

Guillermo
September 18, 2011, 06:03 PM
loosedhorse pretty much said it all

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 06:15 PM
Point of clarification: at least in WI and, I believe, OH, state law does not bar concealed carry in stadiums. It is, technically, legal. However, the law also grants businesses the right to bar concealed carry on their premises, and the stadiums have chosen to do so. UW Madison decided to allow concealed carry while tailgating and in the parking lots, but you can't take your weapon into the stadium itself.

Deaf Smith
September 18, 2011, 07:45 PM
Another thing about stadium carry.

Lots of people carry their weapon not because of violence IN the stadium but violence going back to their cars.

Keep in mind muggings won't be in front of 10,000 people, but they sure might be in a dark parking lot.

Deaf

NavyLCDR
September 18, 2011, 08:07 PM
I asked in general earlier, but didn't see a response, I thought a couple of posters said it was legal to carry concealed at their stadiums. Would someone mind posting which stadiums those are?

Every stadium and convention center operated by any municipality in Washington state, see my post #22

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7586667&postcount=22

Exeter
September 18, 2011, 08:56 PM
Every stadium and convention center operated by any municipality in Washington state, see my post #22

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7586667&postcount=22

Does that include Safeco Field and CenturyLink Stadium?

NavyLCDR
September 18, 2011, 10:41 PM
Does that include Safeco Field and CenturyLink Stadium?

Actually, possession of firearms is LEGAL at every stadium in Washington state, if the person holds a CPL. The only time in Washington that possession of a firearm in a stadium CAN be made illegal is if a city, county or other municipality bans firearms in a stadium they operate AND a person who does not have a CPL carries there anyway.

Any non-governmental entity that leases or operates the stadium can ban firearms. However, that does not make it illegal to carry there. If you are asked to leave, and you refuse to, then you are trespassing... but there still is no firearms carrying violation.

Ben86
September 18, 2011, 11:58 PM
Because criminals will carry their guns into stadiums, CCW permit holders should be allowed to as well. I understand that using a gun in crowded place is risky. But if it is used at point blank ranges that risk is not as great. Unless they will scan everyone to make sure no one has a gun they should allow lawful carry.

Exeter
September 19, 2011, 07:34 AM
Actually, possession of firearms is LEGAL at every stadium in Washington state, if the person holds a CPL. The only time in Washington that possession of a firearm in a stadium CAN be made illegal is if a city, county or other municipality bans firearms in a stadium they operate AND a person who does not have a CPL carries there anyway.

Any non-governmental entity that leases or operates the stadium can ban firearms. However, that does not make it illegal to carry there. If you are asked to leave, and you refuse to, then you are trespassing... but there still is no firearms carrying violation.

I checked on the PAFOA forums and that is also the case in Pennsylvania. WI is still refining their procedures, since their permit law is so new, but it looks like the situation there is the same. The teams that lease the four major stadiums in PA have a policy of no weapons on premises. Three of them do checks at the gate, one doesn't. The situation may be different in other states, but a quick look at the exemptions in the law that sets up your CHL system should tell you.

OK, then let me re-phrase my question for the literalists out there:

Does anyone know of a major stadium that does NOT have a No Firearms policy? I'm most curious about major stadiums that also serve alcohol. The angle of the alcohol sales seems to be the issue for most of the stadium operators, I suspect because the bulk of the alcohol sales go through walk-around vendors who can't keep track of who is getting overly intoxicated.

So my question: Major stadiums that do not have a No Firearms policy? I'll throw out one, Lambeau Field. Others?

LKB3rd
September 19, 2011, 09:40 AM
Yes. A law abiding citizen is just as unlikely to go shooting people because of an argument (substitute your favorite fear based anti-argument if you like) as they are anywhere else.

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 10:05 AM
The data that I am interested in is what stadia have had significant numbers of CC happening in them legally, and what has been the result. Whether the guns have been kept out because of a law or because of stadium owner policy, those are not the data points I'd be interested in. After all, the question is whether bad things start happening if people are carrying in football stadia.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 10:16 AM
The data that I am interested in is what stadia have had significant numbers of CC happening in them legally,But that is data that is physically impossible to obtain.

We can do a little research and find out in what states someone may carry in to a sporting event/venue. We could do a little more research and find out the approximate percentage of society in those states who have carry permits/licenses.
We then have to take a wild guess as to how many folks who have their permit do indeed carry, and how often, and whether they'd carry to a game.
Then we have to account for which stadiums have "no firearms" policies, and take another guess as to whether folks obey them (or even know about them).

It's not like there's a checklist as you enter about what you're carrying with you, such that we could gain reliable info.

About all we can say is that it is legal in many places, it surely is done by some people (some here have done so), and that we don't know of any instances of a lawfully-carried weapon being used illegally or causing any problem at all in any stadium anywhere.

That isn't exactly a scientific study of the situation, but you have to draw what conclusions you can from whatever information you do have, right?

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 10:48 AM
Sam, you are right, I think, that there's no way to know with certainty how many people, exactly, have been carrying.

But we could learn, I hope, which stadia have allowed guns in. The point that I was trying to clarify is that, if a state does not prohibit CC in athletic venues, but those venues themselves prohibit it, that doesn't provide much evidence of what would happen if CC were to be allowed. This is an empirical question: what happens when people can and do CC inside stadia?

If the answer is, "The following 22 stadia have allowed CC for a combined total of 486 football games without incident," then that's a powerful data point. If the answer is, "No stadium over 10,000 seats has seen authorized CC (whether because laws or property-owner rules against it) in the last 50 years," then that data point is just missing. And we're back to prognosticating about what might happen.

But earlier in the thread, some posters argued that the data points existed. I would love to see them. Since I generally favor allowing CC, I'd love to be persuaded that my concerns about it stadia are ill-founded. If the data exist, share them, and convince me not to worry.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 11:00 AM
The point that I was trying to clarify is that, if a state does not prohibit CC in athletic venues, but those venues themselves prohibit it, that doesn't provide much evidence of what would happen if CC were to be allowed.

O.k., but a stadium simply prohibiting CCW doesn't mean that people don't do it (legally or illegally). Here in PA, and in several other states already mentioned, their prohibition doesn't really mean much. I certainly wouldn't give it a second thought, myself.

But some would -- leading to another completely intangible point of no-data.

Perhaps it would be possible to find which stadiums search every person entering and/or use metal detectors. That would be somewhat more informative as the incidence of discovery goes up, at least a little bit, and the deterrant effect on lawful carriers could be surmised to be significant.

This is an empirical question: what happens when people can and do CC inside stadia?

Well, as I said, a few things we DO in fact know:
1) It is lawful in some places.
2) People do carry there in numbers significant enough that some representative examples of that population appear here in this very thread.
3) None of us have found any reports of lawful carriers shooting anyone or creating any disturbance at a sporting event.

Some conclusions surely can be drawn.

Loosedhorse
September 19, 2011, 11:04 AM
convince me not to worry.Are you serous? Our rights are to be sacrificed if you are worried? Do your own legwork, and convince us TO worry.

Where are your headlines "Innocent child shot by errant CCW-holder at Stadium?" Proof doesn't work in one direction: you want us to worry about what what we think is a non-problem, first prove the problem exists. (Those who are interested in convincing you not to worry can go look for data, too.)

After you prove the problem exists (and show how often it happens), all you'll need to do is prove that a law against CCW will solve the problem, and not cause more harm to innocents (the CCWers) than to their supposed errant-shot-in-stadium victims.

And then, prove that even if all that is so, such a ban is not violative of 2A. Then, we're all convinced! :D

We can look for all the (non-existent) "empirical data" we want; but so what, if some of us believe that NO MATTER what the data says, that doesn't change our rights to self-defense and to KBA.

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 11:21 AM
Sam, I'm not sure I follow your last post. If it's "lawful" some places (and for purposes of this discussion, carrying in violation of the property owner's rule is not "lawful," I think), what are those places? Some people have posted that there is no independent legal barrier beyond the rules of the venue, but has anyone said "___ Park allows CC"?

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 11:30 AM
Loosedhorse, you seem to have me confused with the government. This thread just asked a question about how posters felt about CC in stadia. I responded that I thought it a hard question, and that there were certain things about a football stadium in particular that made me concerned about introducing CC there. Then there was a long discussion about whether that concern was reasonable, etc., and I explained why I had those concerns. If those posts are unconvincing to you, that's fine; I'm not seeking anything from you, so I can live with you being unpersuaded.

The thread took an interesting turn when some posters suggested that CC has been allowed in some stadia before now, to no bad effect. Since I like CC, I was hopeful that this was true. Subsequent posts were spent clarifying that "CC allowed" doesn't just mean not-independently-statutorily-barred, but also permitted by the owner of the stadium. Anyway, I'm still hopeful that someone will be able to tell us about a stadium where CC is allowed and what the record there has been.

Guillermo
September 19, 2011, 11:43 AM
1) It is lawful in some places.
2) People do carry there in numbers significant enough that some representative examples of that population appear here in this very thread.
3) None of us have found any reports of lawful carriers shooting anyone or creating any disturbance at a sporting event.

Some conclusions surely can be drawn.

Some conclusions can be drawn...

but even though you led that horse to water...

Guillermo
September 19, 2011, 11:49 AM
The argument against CCL in a stadium is based on alcohol consumption and the fact that a safe shot is unlikely.

I carry where people drink daily.
I carry where it would not be wise to take a shot daily.

Doesn't mean I shouldn't carry.

Mike1234567
September 19, 2011, 12:14 PM
Whoever said they would drink while carrying?

Loosedhorse
September 19, 2011, 12:39 PM
Loosedhorse, you seem to have me confused with the government.No, I confused you with someone who said: "convince me not to worry." Oh wait, you did; so I guess I'm not confused.

"Worry" is an emotional state. "Convince" implies certainty--another emotional state. You have set us the task of finding data to shift you from one emotional state to another?Anyway, I'm still hopeful that someone will be able to tell us about a stadium where CC is allowed and what the record there has been.And I am still hopeful that perhaps YOU will decide to tell us in which stadium(s) the errant shootings of innocents have occurred; and then we can find out what the CCW policy there was at the time.

Again, if you ask us to "convince" you, it is only fair that you consider taking up a reciprocal challenge. If you want to convince me (or anyone else here) your worry has a rational basis based in available data, that's fine; or that your worry is not only data-verified, but also concerns a problem of sufficient proportion that "something must be done;" also fine. And if you want to convince me that the "something" we should do about it is keep legal ccw out of stadiums (because that will solve or lessen the "problem," without causing a worse problem), also fine.

Alternatively, if (gasp!) we discover that the shooting of innocents in stadiums by innacurate CCWers is actually not a problem, perhaps you will seek to convince us that only polices against CCW in stadiums have so far prevented such carnage; and that if we were to remove or loosen such policies, then "blood will flow in the bleachers!"

If you choose none of the above, also fine. But your "worry" does not allow you to posit the existence of an actual problem, until we supply proof sufficient to convince you that the problem actually doesn't exist.

As long as we're discussing how we feel about "about CC in stadia"--well, there you go. I just discussed how I felt.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 12:41 PM
Whoever said they would drink while carrying?
I have said that before. Don't really want to sidetrack the discussion into that area again, but I carry in bars, restaruants that serve alcohol, and ocationally if not regularly enjoy a beer or two while lawfully armed.

No laws broken, no corpses piling up.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 12:47 PM
Sam, I'm not sure I follow your last post.
Really?

You asked this:
This is an empirical question: what happens when people can and do CC inside stadia?
And I explained that we can't ever know how many folks do carry concealed firearms in stadiums, but we know that SOME do, and they have not yet caused deaths or mayhem.

How are you not able to follow?

If it's "lawful" some places (and for purposes of this discussion, carrying in violation of the property owner's rule is not "lawful," I think)Why?
"Lawful" seems to indicate that what the law actually says has some bearing on the matter. Oftentimes what the owner of the venue has to say doesn't actually influence the lawfulness of the act. You seem to be defining "lawful" in a much broader way than the dictionary would.

And why does it matter? WHOMEVER is carrying firearms in stadiums seems to be either unwilling or unable to induce the violence and panic that has been promised by those opposed to the idea. Ironically, even those who carry illegally don't seem to be so inclined, so how then does a lawful carrier make that situation worse?

, what are those places? Some people have posted that there is no independent legal barrier beyond the rules of the venue, but has anyone said "___ Park allows CC"? I don't know. It really doesn't seem relevant to the original question/hypothesis.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 12:51 PM
I'm still hopeful that someone will be able to tell us about a stadium where CC is allowed and what the record there has been.
Let's put a fine point on it: NO problems have been reported of lawfully armed persons causing death, violence, or panic in stadiums. Therefore, the record in ALL stadiums -- including all of those which allow or do not dis-allow concealed carry -- is very good on this matter.

Pro-Concealed-Carry Stadiums is a subset of ALL Staiums. In the larger set of ALL Stadiums, no problems have been reported. Therefore in the subset "Pro-Concealed-Carry Stadiums" there have been no problems.

Make sense?

Mike1234567
September 19, 2011, 12:51 PM
I have said that before. Don't really want to sidetrack the discussion into that area again, but I carry in bars, restaruants that serve alcohol, and ocationally if not regularly enjoy a beer or two while lawfully armed.

No laws broken, no corpses piling up.
I guess I missed that. I'll re-word my question. :)

Whoever said they would carry and drink excessively?

Exeter
September 19, 2011, 01:19 PM
Pro-Concealed-Carry Stadiums is a subset of ALL Staiums. In the larger set of ALL Stadiums, no problems have been reported. Therefore in the subset "Pro-Concealed-Carry Stadiums" there have been no problems.

Make sense?

Not really, because so far, I have not seen a single response that would indicate that your subset of Pro-Concealed-Carry stadiums exists. Having no reported problems from an empty data set is not a persuasive argument. Similarly, having no reported problems from stadiums which have No Firearms policies but don't do weapons checks at the gate is not persuasive, since even assuming that people have indeed carried weapons into the stadium ignoring the wishes of the property owner, it can also be reasoned that they knew they violating stadium policy and would therefore be on their best behavior in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves.

So, once again, which major stadiums do not have a No Firearms policy?

Loosedhorse
September 19, 2011, 01:24 PM
assuming that people have indeed carried weapons into the stadium ignoring the wishes of the property owner, it can also be reasoned that they knew they violating stadium policy and would therefore be on their best behavior in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves.Ah. So, those who knowingly violate weapons polices are the types who will therefore be on their best behavior; but, if they had permission to carry, THEN they would feel comfortable getting drunk and shooting up the place, because that wouldn't draw any attention to themselves?

There's a couple of interesting hypotheses. Any data, or just "empty sets"?

Exeter
September 19, 2011, 01:30 PM
<Attempt at avoiding answering posted question ignored>

So, once again, which major stadiums do not have a No Firearms policy?

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 01:52 PM
it can also be reasoned that they knew they violating stadium policy and would therefore be on their best behavior in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves.



WHAT? So...worrying about being ejected from the game will put them on their best behavior...

... but society's laws against violence and the ensuing felony convictions resultant from not "being on their best behavior" do not?

So, the fact that they haven't killed anyone, shot into crowds, caused stampedes, and otherwise run amok is mostly because they're afraid of losing the cost of the ticket? Not because doing any of those things is a) morally wrong, and b) already heavily illegal?

Now I'm not following where you're leading.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 01:55 PM
So, once again, which major stadiums do not have a No Firearms policy? Don't have any idea. Do your own research there if you're looking to convince yourself pro or con.

I KNOW for a fact that people carry firearms into sporting events -- both legally and non -- and I know for a fact that we do not see reports of any problems stemming from the practice. That answers the original question adequately in my opinion.

"Which stadiums" really is a red herring that is only tangentially related to the question at hand.

Loosedhorse
September 19, 2011, 01:56 PM
So, once again, which major stadiums do not have a No Firearms policy? Why do insist that we answer an irrelevant question? Is such expectation reasonable?

If YOU think the question has relevance, then stop asking us to answer it: YOU go answer it. You have the same access to google that I do--plus, you have an advantage: you actually think the answer might matter.

Hurry on back; we'll wait.

NavyLCDR
September 19, 2011, 02:10 PM
Loosedhorse, you seem to have me confused with the government. This thread just asked a question about how posters felt about CC in stadia. I responded that I thought it a hard question, and that there were certain things about a football stadium in particular that made me concerned about introducing CC there. Then there was a long discussion about whether that concern was reasonable, etc., and I explained why I had those concerns. If those posts are unconvincing to you, that's fine; I'm not seeking anything from you, so I can live with you being unpersuaded.

The thread took an interesting turn when some posters suggested that CC has been allowed in some stadia before now, to no bad effect. Since I like CC, I was hopeful that this was true. Subsequent posts were spent clarifying that "CC allowed" doesn't just mean not-independently-statutorily-barred, but also permitted by the owner of the stadium. Anyway, I'm still hopeful that someone will be able to tell us about a stadium where CC is allowed and what the record there has been.

ATLDave,

Is there someplace where there isn't someone who feels it's "too dangerous" to carry a firearm? We have bars, because people drink. We have restaurants that serve alcohol, because people drink. We have parks, because of the children. We have schools, because of the children. We have homes with children, because of the children. We have parking lots because of people fghting over parking spaces. The list goes on and on. If you compile a list of places where some state has passed some law prohibiting guns to be carried ready to rock and roll, you will find that almost 100% everywhere is covered.

It should not be up to us to prove that carrying a gun is "safe" in a certain location. Show us examples of where there has actually been a problem? And then, if there has been a problem, tell us why the rest of the population that carries a gun without that problem should be restricted. More people are shot in their own homes due to negligence than anywhere else. So, would banning loaded guns in the home be the answer?

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 02:28 PM
Unfortunately, it appears that the answer is that nobody here knows of stadia where CC is allowed.

Exeter
September 19, 2011, 02:47 PM
[QUOTE]Don't have any idea. Do your own research there if you're looking to convince yourself pro or con. [\QUOTE]
The statement was made in past postings that some stadiums allow concealed carry. It is not my responsibility to verify someone else's statements. I have tried, and I have been unsuccessful. But since absence of proof in not proof of absence I asked repeatedly here, under the assumption the the persons who made the original statement in fact knew that statement to be true.

"Which stadiums" is not a Red Herring, it is central to the question at hand, and it is one you are going to have to be prepared to answer if you going to attempt to make a change in concealed carry policies of major stadiums.

[QUOTE]I KNOW for a fact that people carry firearms into sporting events -- both legally and non -- and I know for a fact that we do not see reports of any problems stemming from the practice.[\QUOTE]

Sam, you live in Pennsylvania, do you suggest going over to PNC Park in Pittsburgh and asking the Pirates organization to take down their No Firearms signs because you know people routinely sneak their pistols into the stadium and there has not been a problem? Or going down to LincolnFinancial Field in Philly and telling the Eagles they should stop banning firearms at Eagles games because PNC Park doesn't do a weapons check and people sneak in guns all the time? I doubt very much doing that will get them to take their signs down.

Absent any information to the contrary, it appears that all major stadiums have a No Firearms policy. Another fact, there have been no problems. Those are the only facts, everything else presented here is supposition and will not be persuasive in getting No Firearms policies changed.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 02:47 PM
Unfortunately, it appears that the answer is that nobody here knows of stadia where CC is allowed.

By your expanded definiton of "lawful," no.

Fortunately, the point seems to be irrelevant to the question we came here to discuss.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 02:53 PM
Sam, you live in Pennsylvania, do you suggest going over to PNC Park in Pittsburgh and asking the Pirates organization to take down their No Firearms signs ... YES! Certainly. Of course!

...because you know people routinely sneak their pistols into the stadium and there has not been a problem?I would not use that reason to convince them, or at least not phrased that way. I'd probably go for the "I won't spend my money with your organization as long as..." route, but that's sort of misleading of me as I never would anyway.

[/QUOTE] Or going down to LincolnFinancial Field in Philly and telling the Eagles they should stop banning firearms at Eagles games because PNC Park doesn't do a weapons check and people sneak in guns all the time? I doubt very much doing that will get them to take their signs down.[/QUOTE]Probably not.

Doesn't really change the answer to the original question, though. Do they belong there? Yes. If I'm there, my defensive sidearm belongs there with me.

The "activism" question of effective ways of changing the policies of large sports-entertainment corporations is a separate issue.

Exeter
September 19, 2011, 03:01 PM
Fortunately, the point seems to be irrelevant to the question we came here to discuss.

Not really.
Original question: Should people be able to bring concealed weapons into 80,000-seat stadiums?

Fact: All major stadiums have policies banning possession of concealed weapons.
Fact: There have been no problems.

You seem to arguing that because of fact (2), you should eliminate fact (1). I and others have been asking for additional facts, but have been been given only suppositions (and a number of veiled and not-so-veiled insults.)

Edit: Saw your 'activism' comment. Agree, but I brought it up since it seemed to be pervasive in many of the responses.

My opinion going into this discussion was no, they do not belong. I was willing to be convinced to change my opinion, but I haven't seen anything to make me do so. Indeed, the aggressive tone of some of the responses gives me some cause to be concerned about just how some CHL holders would react if they were indeed involved in a confrontation in such a venue.

Loosedhorse
September 19, 2011, 03:24 PM
Unfortunately, it appears that the answer is that nobody here knows of stadia where CC is allowed.Funny. I was just going to say that fortunately, it appears the answer is that nobody here knows of any problem with CC in stadiums. I guess I'm just a glass-half-full optimist.Fact: All major stadiums have policies banning possession of concealed weapons.
Fact: There have been no problems.You mean you knew this, all this time? ;)

Perhaps you can answer some additional questions: why should we assume a policy against CCW in stadiums (absent TSA-like access control) has actually prevented all CCW in those stadiums?

Why should we assume (as so many antigunners assumed when states started legalizing or liberalizing CCW) that easing those restrictions will result in "the Wild West?" I was willing to be convinced to change my opinionWere you? You seem to have said you were only willing to change it if presented with evidence...that you yourself claim does not exist. Indeed, the aggressive tone of some of the responses gives me some cause to be concerned about just how some CHL holders would react if they were indeed involved in a confrontation in such a venue. So...you think that if only I could reach through this computer, I'd shoot you for disagreeing with me?

Sorry. Not buying. IMHO you've made no effort to be convinced; and your main "reason" for opposing CCW in stadiums is that you are scared of CCWers.

And that's fine.

pekosROB
September 19, 2011, 03:30 PM
Based on assumptions, I would say yes we should be allowed to carry. But based off of real life idiots, I would have to say regretfully no.

Those of us that flock to online communities such as THR, lawfully obtain CCW/CHL, and practice somewhat regularly/rigorously, believe we should be allowed to. Why? Because we don't plan on using it against someone unless threatened.

The unfortunate reality of it is that those who aren't as comfortable or familiar around firearms as we are probably would be completely against this concept. But what they don't understand is people who aren't respectful like us will not care what the rules are anyway and would do however he/she feels fit.

Excuse the rambling, I hope I made some sense in there somewhere.

Edit: I did not think about the fact that they serve alcohol at stadiums (well, at least some do). Alcohol and firearms I can see not mixing, but as a CHL holder I don't drink when I'm carrying. If I want to drink, I drink at home. Or I don't carry into the restaurant.

Exeter
September 19, 2011, 03:34 PM
You seem to have said you were only willing to change it if presented with evidence..that you yourself claim does not exist.

Hm... I asked for evidence, none was forthcoming. Door is still open, but so far, nothing's come through.


So...you think that if only I could reach through this computer, I'd shoot you for disagreeing with me?


Good example of the aggressive tone I was talking about. Position challenged, immediate reference to shooting someone.


...your main "reason" for opposing CCW in stadiums is that you are scared of CCWers.

Insult implying cowardice of my part, implied reference to poster as more courageous. Thanks for making my points for me.

Loosedhorse
September 19, 2011, 03:41 PM
Position challenged, immediate reference to shooting someone.No, immediate question of whether you think I would do that--and apparently you do. You certainly think that CCWers will shoot up stadiums if given half a chance.Insult implying cowardice of my partNot at all: some of the bravest men I've ever met or heard about were plenty scared at times. Scared's got nothing to do with cowardice.

If you, however, have worries about your perhaps being a coward, please don't project those concerns as coming fom me. As I said, I think it's fine if you're scared. Heck, I'm scared of guns! :)

Mike1234567
September 19, 2011, 03:52 PM
I'm scared of this thread... *shakes in boots* *wets pants* :what:

:D :D :D :D :D

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 04:05 PM
Good grief. Please don't drag this down into "Are you THREATENING ME?" silliness.

I've read very little that even COULD be taken aggressively here and look on any such claims with great incredulity.

If you're feeling threatened by what anyone has said to you in this thread, the "real" world must indeed be a daunting place.

...

It does appear that there are two sets of assumptions at play here -- as Loosedhorse has suggsted, "Glass half full" and "Glass half empty" sides.

"Glass half full" = This phenomenon exists and yet no problems seem to stem from it. People who carry in stadiums (whether legally or not) do not appear to kill anyone or cause panic. It is reasonable to assume that similar extremely low levels of negative incidence would arise from this practice being more widespread. Laws and rules against this practice are a useless intrusion.

"Glass half empty" = This phenomenon either doesn't REALLY exist, or if it does it only is practiced by an extreme few of very careful, lawful people. If the barriers that do exist were removed, people would begin behaving dangerously as the majority cannot be entrusted with this responsibility. Laws and rules against this practice actually do make a difference and save lives -- we need these laws and rules so we don't start killing each other.

...

I asked for evidence, none was forthcoming. Others asked for evidense to prove YOUR point of view and none could be produced to support it, either.

Seems like both sides are demanding proof to support the opposing view before considering the validity of the others' argument.

Again, I find myself falling on the side that says -- this exists now, and no problem has arisen. Ergo -- believing that the problem must or will become significant is not logical.

Guillermo
September 19, 2011, 04:15 PM
While I have no idea into which stadiums one can carry...

the conditions exist elsewhere.

And just like EVERYWHERE else, CC licensees conduct themselves well.

It is just as ridiculous to say "shootings don't happen in stadiums because they don't allow CCLs" as it is to say "Shooting don't happen in operating rooms because they don't allow CCL's".

You can't prove a negative.

And since CC Licensees conduct themselves well everywhere else...it is moronic to decide that rooting for "their team" is going to create some other behavior.

Mike1234567
September 19, 2011, 04:19 PM
Threads like this remind me of my ex-wife... always trying to argue over nothing... always had to be right... never once apologized for abusiveness... yadda yadda yadda. I just ignored her when she became annoying and abusive but this thread is far too entertaining to ignore.:evil:

I remember seeing/hearing a young couple in the grocery store a few years ago arguing over which was the thicker ketchup... Hunts or Heinz. I thought they were going to start throwing punches. I'm not kidding.:uhoh::D

Vern Humphrey
September 19, 2011, 04:22 PM
But that is data that is physically impossible to obtain.

We can do a little research and find out in what states someone may carry in to a sporting event/venue. We could do a little more research and find out the approximate percentage of society in those states who have carry permits/licenses.
We then have to take a wild guess as to how many folks who have their permit do indeed carry, and how often, and whether they'd carry to a game.
Then we have to account for which stadiums have "no firearms" policies, and take another guess as to whether folks obey them (or even know about them).

It's not like there's a checklist as you enter about what you're carrying with you, such that we could gain reliable info.

About all we can say is that it is legal in many places, it surely is done by some people (some here have done so), and that we don't know of any instances of a lawfully-carried weapon being used illegally or causing any problem at all in any stadium anywhere.

That isn't exactly a scientific study of the situation, but you have to draw what conclusions you can from whatever information you do have, right?
But the artument is not, "Should X number of people be allowed to carry in stadiums?" It is, "Should anyone be allowed to carry in stadiums?"

So we are not discussing whether people do or do not carry, or how many carry, but rather whether there should be a law -- a piece of paper -- saying they can't carry.

Since there are stadiums where there is no such law, we have only to look at those stadiums and see if innocent people are being killed or wounded by CHL holders.

And the answer, is: They are not. There is no actual problem, as much as the control freaks would like to construct one out of imagination and thin air.

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 06:28 PM
Vern, if there are stadia where there is no law (and that includes the property owner's rules, since those are enforced by law) against CC, what are they?

Vern Humphrey
September 19, 2011, 06:43 PM
Vern, if there are stadia where there is no law (and that includes the property owner's rules, since those are enforced by law) against CC, what are they?
The State of Washington has already been cited as one such.

ATLDave
September 19, 2011, 06:53 PM
Vern, I read the posts re: WA to indicate that the law did not have an independent ban on CC in stadia. The additional piece of information needed is whether any of the athletic venues in that state do not have their own rules against weapons.

To my knowledge, my state does not have a law against dancing (fully clothed) on tables in restaurants. But most restaurants have a de facto rule against it, in that they would throw you out if you insisted on doing it. And the cops would back them up. The same is true, I suspect, of at least the stadium in WA where the Seahawks play, since there's an NFL policy on/against weapons. So, while there may not be a statutory prohibition, the property owner's policy and rights still must be considered.

With that said, are there any large athletic venues where CC is allowed?

Vern Humphrey
September 19, 2011, 06:57 PM
Geeze! The harm of allowing concealed carry is stadiums is exempt from proof, isn't it? It's good enough to say the law should forbid concealed carry in statiums, without a single incident to show that some harm might result, isn't it?

First, show me harm. Then we can continue the debate.

Sam1911
September 19, 2011, 07:18 PM
To my knowledge, my state does not have a law against dancing (fully clothed) on tables in restaurants. But most restaurants have a de facto rule against it, in that they would throw you out if you insisted on doing it. And the cops would back them up.Sure. But that's a visible display that affects them and their patrons. You bring attention to yourself and they object -- out you go.

Now, say they have a huge sign up front that says, "No Qurans permitted." (Or kewpie dolls or whatever.) You enter with your dog-eared treasured copy in your pocket. What happens? Same thing that happens if you enter with your defensive sidearm discretely secured on your hip. NOTHING.

The same is true, I suspect, of at least the stadium in WA where the Seahawks play, since there's an NFL policy on/against weapons. So, while there may not be a statutory prohibition, the property owner's policy and rights still must be considered. You suspect? I thought you wanted proof of these things?

But at any rate, the property rights (if the right to demand compliance with a dictum absent enforcement or discernment of compliance is a property right -- which we've debated here inconclusively for years) of the owner may be considered. MAY be, not must be.

kfgk14
September 19, 2011, 07:26 PM
Not trying to be the most interesting man on the planet with my next comment, but, I rarely watch stadium sports but when I do, I prefer to do so from the comfort of my own home. Climate control, reasonably priced adult beverages, clean restrooms, no one jumping up in front of me, no one sloshing beer on me, slow motion, instant replay, multiple camera angles, guys a lot smarter than me explaining the finer points of what's going on, no traffic and last but not least, a lot less likely to get mugged inside my own home. So the bigger question is why would I even go to a stadium? Just sayin'.....


This...
Not to mention at home, I'm not limited to my carry gun. I can have whatever I have in my safe right there, loaded!

Vern Humphrey
September 19, 2011, 09:55 PM
You suspect? I thought you wanted proof of these things?
People who want to restrict our Constitutional rights don't need proof. Only people who respect the Constitution are required to post proof in this debate.:rolleyes:

Autolycus
September 20, 2011, 01:26 AM
As far as public events they do belong if the stadium is publicly owned. However if the renter decides no-guns then that is the rule that should be followed. But I don't think it should be prohibited by law. However if they post a sign prohibiting it, at the owners request or renters request, then it should be an automatic trespass if you are caught.

Sam1911
September 20, 2011, 06:52 AM
then it should be an automatic trespass if you are caught
Generally, trespass requires that you be confronted, asked to leave, and then refuse.

Simply being somewhere or doing something the owner doesn't like, or has a rule against, isn't enough to bring charges.

Vern Humphrey
September 20, 2011, 09:01 AM
As far as public events they do belong if the stadium is publicly owned. However if the renter decides no-guns then that is the rule that should be followed. But I don't think it should be prohibited by law. However if they post a sign prohibiting it, at the owners request or renters request, then it should be an automatic trespass if you are caught.
And if they post a "no guns" sign, they should assume an absolute liability for your protection.

Loosedhorse
September 20, 2011, 09:06 AM
absolute liability for your protectionI'm pretty sure that's what the fine print on the back of the ticket says. ;)

Guillermo
September 20, 2011, 09:28 AM
Since CC licensees are less likely to be charged with a crime than policemen...logic dictates that banning armed policemen from any given place makes more sense than banning concealed carry licensees.

NavyLCDR
September 20, 2011, 10:19 AM
However if they post a sign prohibiting it, at the owners request or renters request, then it should be an automatic trespass if you are caught.

I don't particularly desire to live in a municipality where I can be convicted of a minimum misdemeanor crime based upon an inanimate, posted sign that may or may not have been in a location where I could see it.... and may or may not have actually been in place at the time of the "offense". Like Sam1911 posted, let's be satisfied with actual verbal or personally served written notification by the operator/agent/owner of the property and refusal to leave being required for trespassing.

Vern Humphrey
September 20, 2011, 11:40 AM
I don't particularly desire to live in a municipality where I can be convicted of a minimum misdemeanor crime based upon an inanimate, posted sign that may or may not have been in a location where I could see it.... and may or may not have actually been in place at the time of the "offense". Like Sam1911 posted, let's be satisfied with actual verbal or personally served written notification by the operator/agent/owner of the property and refusal to leave being required for trespassing.

The Parable of the Lollapaloosa

There was a fellow playing poker in a bar in Louisiana. He was dealt a straight flush, and bet heavily. His opponent laid down a deuce, a trey, a nine, a jack and a king and took the pot.

"What is this?"

"I got a lollapaloosa," said his opponent, and pointed to a sign the fellow hadn't seen. It said, "House Rules. A lollapaloosa, deuce, trey, nine, jack and king takes all."

They played a few more hands, and the fellow wound up with a lollapaloosa. He bet all he had left, and his opponent laid down a pair of deuces and took the pot.

"Hey, I had a lollapaloosa!"

His opponent reached behind him and flipped down the bar gate. Hanging from it was a sign that said, "House rules. Only one lollapaloosa per evening."

The meaning of this parable is, obscure signs can get you in trouble. They have to tell you.

X-Rap
September 20, 2011, 11:51 AM
I don't like the fact that there are places I can't go armed like the PO, Schools, Capital Building, many Gov. buildings, my sons college, my other sons home, even airplanes.
Fact is the BG's don't pay attention to the laws or signs and if you have gone through any security points at stadiums, arenas and military installations you know how little imagination it would take to get your weapon of choice through.
I can't say that I would want to try and use a firearm in those crowds and for the most part a gun in one of these hooligan attacks would probably cause some collateral damage but the walk to and from unarmed and having to leave it in the car is not appealing. I also believe that a gun is like a seat belt or helmet in that we can never know when it will be needed so it is best to have it employed when ever possible.

Vern Humphrey
September 20, 2011, 11:55 AM
This is the key the antis miss here. If you have a gun in a life-threatening situation, you can choose to use it or not.

If you don't have a gun, you have no choice.

X-Rap
September 20, 2011, 12:12 PM
I agree vern and in a situation in which there is an active shooter I think I have reconciled the fact that I would probably take the chance to stop what would otherwise be mass casualties for the chance of hitting an inocent bystander. It is not a comforting thought and there would certainly be serious repercussions but I believe there are considerations that one should make when they arm themselves in public.
I also have been working on increasing my physical abilities to alleviate the need for the nuclear option and as stated in previous post wouldn't pull a gun in a crowd without there being extreme circumstances and then only if I deemed other non firing option unfeasible.

Sam1911
September 20, 2011, 12:51 PM
...I think I have reconciled the fact that I would probably take the chance to stop what would otherwise be mass casualties for the chance of hitting an inocent bystander.


OR, you don't and you hold back like the armed fellow present during the Giffords shooting who saw that he had no shot, accepted the fact, and made the wise choice to harm no one.

At any rate, you have options, and that's the point.

DAP90
September 20, 2011, 01:15 PM
Keep in mind muggings won't be in front of 10,000 people, but they sure might be in a dark parking lot. The one and only time I was robbed at gunpoint was in a densely packed crowd. The mugger just put his gun in my side and robbed me very quietly, using the press of bodies to hide what he was doing. This was after an event that had thousands packed into a venue and was done in the crowds that come with everyone being let out at once.

I have to admit, at first I was on the fence. On the one hand I donít want the restrictions on carry that will only be followed by the law abiding. On the other, the concerns regarding what would happen in the event of a shooting are legitimate. Innocent bystanders will get hurt. I have a young son Iím somewhat overprotective of and view many things through that filter. It colors my viewpoints a bit.

Based on the arguments presented I ultimately had to admit to two things; one, if we ban guns we just trade one set of risks for another (bystanders getting hurt for being unable to defend yourself) and two, if it hasnít proven to be a problem - then it isnít a problem and doesnít need to be addressed; especially when the alternative risk, muggings and beatings, is a problem.

My two cents Ė late to the thread as usual.

X-Rap
September 20, 2011, 01:48 PM
Your right Sam and my only point is to get your mind wraped around some of these matters when you decide to carry a gun with the intent of defense. We can look at many mass shootings with 20-20 hindsite and that is a good thing but they are all different and to date it seems there are fewer outcomes that ended by intervention of an armed citizen than the killer whacking himself. Crowds are certainly a hinderence in considering armed defence but an active shooter help bring a little clarity, at least for me.

Loosedhorse
September 20, 2011, 01:57 PM
it seems there are fewer outcomes that ended by intervention of an armed citizen than the killer whacking himselfNot mutually exclusive. Often, the first time the shooters are confronted by armed defenders (rather than unarmed victims), they press the suicide button. Columbine is an example, but there are many before and since.

That's what has changed the "active shooter" response pradigm: intervene NOW, not once SWAT and dogs and negotiators arrive.

X-Rap
September 20, 2011, 02:46 PM
It goes without saying the there will be the sounds of sirens at some point when there is an active shooter the problem is getting him shut down to minimize the loss of life. I agree that the arrival of the police has often provoked the killers to shoot themselves but I also think that it is often in the plan anyway and the sooner someone else can stop them the better be it with a car, gun, knife baseball bat.
This is an interesting article and timely for this discussion.
http://www.warriortalknews.com/

ATLDave
September 20, 2011, 04:10 PM
Vern, Sam, it seems we're talking in circles. I cannot point you to an incident of legal CC being a problem in stadia. That may be because there has generally been no such thing as legal CC in stadia. If we've not allowed it, then there's just no data as to what would happen, just your conjecture and mine. And the track record of what happens when nobody is allowed to carry, which is a fair amount of small-time bad behavior, and very, very few serious incidents. I think the risks of a change are so great that I'd be reluctant to be involved in the experiment. You seem to feel otherwise. That's fine; it's all just guesswork, apparently.

I think I've exhausted my thoughts on, and interest in, this topic, so I'll probably leave it at that. Interesting talk, though. Thanks for the time.

Sam1911
September 20, 2011, 04:20 PM
If we've not allowed it, then there's just no data as to what would happen, just your conjecture and mine.But we ARE allowed it! That's what we keep saying. It DOES happen, because there ARE stadiums where it is not illegal (whatever the owner might have to say about it) and people DO carry there.

So the thing you are saying we can't assume happens DOES happen -- folks in this thread have told you that they, themselves, do this thing.

It isn't all just guesswork. You don't need to know which stadiums welcome it, or which specifically allow it, or what the NFL has to say about it. All you need to do, as Vern pointed out in post 202 is recognize that...

Since there are stadiums where there is no such law, we have only to look at those stadiums and see if innocent people are being killed or wounded by CHL holders.

And the answer, is: They are not. There is no actual problem

Claiming that we simply cannot know is so baldly obtuse as to appear disingenuous!

Guillermo
September 20, 2011, 05:18 PM
No reasonable person would be against CCL in a stadium or virtually anywhere that an armed policeman is allowed to go.

There is simply no argument that makes any sense whatsoever since stats prove that the cops are more likely to be criminals than CC licensees

Loosedhorse
September 20, 2011, 05:25 PM
I think the risks of a change are so great that I'd be reluctant to be involved in the experiment. You seem to feel otherwise. That's fine; it's all just guesswork, apparently.Intellectual nihilism. If there is no proof, then everyone is guessing, and one supposition is as good as another.

No. There are these things called probabilities. What do we know:

--That many states had limited or no CCW for decades, and when that changed, there were constant predictions that "blood will run in the streets! It'll be Dodge City--fender benders will turn into shoot-outs!" But none of that happened. As each state changed, it was exactly the same. As a result, we now have a HUGE database that shows that (as has been mentioned) CCWers are statistically one of the most law-abiding groups we know of.

--That carry into stadiums (whether against stadium or league policy, or not) has DEFINITELY occured. It probably happens routinely. And yet we have no innocent-bystander or drunken-reveller shootings to report.

--That armed police regularly carry into stadiums, without tragedy resulting.

So, if we were to loosen or remove the carry restrictions, what is more likely: that no one would even notice, or that they would immediately have to institute "bullets" and "no bullets" stadium sections, so the carriers could do a little recreational (or negligent, or criminal) shooting while watching games and yet not bother those in other sections?

:D

No. Your concern is unsupported. Our faith in CCWers is well supported. They are not equal "guesswork."

NavyLCDR
September 20, 2011, 05:34 PM
I have personally carried my gun in the Tacoma Dome. Nobody was injured.

Guillermo
September 20, 2011, 06:24 PM
Claiming that we simply cannot know is so baldly obtuse as to appear disingenuous

Sam...you are a polite man.

GLOOB
September 20, 2011, 10:25 PM
I'm not sure if someone else has already mentioned it, but stadiums are a special case due to population density. There's the crowd/mob logistics to contend with.

1) If gunshots were fired in a stadium, even in self-defense, it could induce panic. Imagine a mob of people all trying to exit the stadium at the same time. This could kill more people than the gun.

2)Guns are quite effective for SD. But they are also very loud. See #1. Also, imagine the disruption to the event, itself. Sure, SD is important, but there are also millions of people in the stadium and at home, trying to watch a game.

I'm not against it, but I think stadiums have some unique features to think about.

Sam1911
September 20, 2011, 10:33 PM
I'm not sure if someone else has already mentioned it...Never hurts to have read the thread you're repsonding to. ;)

GLOOB
September 20, 2011, 10:36 PM
Just adding my 2 cents. Don't need anymore change, myself. :)

Loosedhorse
September 20, 2011, 10:39 PM
GLOOB, if I understand your reasoning, it is better that a CCWer in a stadium be crippled or killed by criminal attack in a stadium, because if he defends himself with a firearm, it'll cause a stampede.

Well, it is perhaps odd that we require him to suffer crippling or mortal injury to prevent stampede. And it should be mentioned that an LEO using his gun would also cause a stampede, so they should carry, either?

Then, of course, you'll need TSA-level controlled access to stadiums: metal detectors, X-rays, bomb-sniffers. Because without those, a law will not prevent a criminal from carrying into a stadium. And so the concern of firearm-induced stampede is not eliminated by banning carry.

All it does is keep the good guys from carrying.Guns are quite effective for SD. But they are also very loud.Perhaps there should be a law requiring muggers or assaulters to gag their victims while in such venues, to prevent those annoying screams? And a law requiring that stadiums supply suppressors to any CCWers?

Deltaboy
September 20, 2011, 10:49 PM
I want to but it is against the LAW in TX! BOO HISS!

JohnBT
September 20, 2011, 10:50 PM
Anybody who pays $8 for a plain old draft beer in a plastic cup at a Redskins game - me for instance - is too stupid to be armed.

John

Guillermo
September 20, 2011, 11:39 PM
but stadiums are a special case due to population density

Nope

I cannot imagine not carrying at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Drunk people everywhere...giant crowds.

I cannot imagine not carrying at the Pecan Street Festival in Austin. Drunk people, giant crowds.

The bottom line is that it is silly to think that stadiums are the only place where drunk people are dense.

GLOOB
September 20, 2011, 11:40 PM
Well, it is perhaps odd that we require him to suffer crippling or mortal injury to prevent stampede.
The term "greater good" comes to mind, here.

It's a criminal offense to yell "fire" in a crowded stadium when there is not. Now imagine you did it because somehow, for some crazy hypothetical reason, yelling "fire" saved your life. Maybe it helped you to evade an attacker. But it created a stampede that killed a dozen people and cost sponsors and event organizer millions upon millions in damages in lost revenue and lawsuits. Now what would you think of that? There's no real answer to this. Just something to think about. When you fire a gun in a packed stadium, it is going to affect a heck of a lot more people than just you and your attacker. People are dumb. Mobs are even dumber.


I cannot imagine not carrying at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Drunk people everywhere...giant crowds.

I cannot imagine not carrying at the Pecan Street Festival in Austin. Drunk people, giant crowds.
I can't imagine going to either of those events and not getting a buzz going, myself. :)

Resist Evil
September 20, 2011, 11:56 PM
The term "greater good" comes to mind, here.

It's a criminal offense to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is not. Now imagine you did it because somehow, for some crazy hypothetical reason, yelling "fire" saved your life. Maybe it helped you to evade an attacker. But it created a stampede that killed a dozen people. Now what would you think of that? There's no real answer to this. Just something to think about. When you fire a gun in a packed stadium, it is going to affect a heck of a lot more people than just you and your attacker.

Is it possible for you to provide an example of this (see the bold lettering)? I would appreciate it. Thank you.

GLOOB
September 21, 2011, 12:13 AM
For starters, it'll affect anyone standing near and/or behind your attacker. :)

There are many examples where people got trampled and died in a crowd, for no good reason. Something as simple as number of exits, or whatnot. Or people jockeying for position for when Walmart is supposed to open on Black Friday? I don't know of any where a gunshot specifically precipitated the issue, though. I'm just thinking out loud. When a mob of people gets panicked, it doesn't matter how stupid the initial reason. The problem becomes the panic, itself.

Guillermo
September 21, 2011, 12:37 AM
When a mob of people gets panicked, it doesn't matter how stupid the initial reason.

with that "logic" police should not be armed in places with population density

Resist Evil
September 21, 2011, 12:40 AM
Please forgive me for not getting it. All I am asking for is an example of firing a gun in a packed stadium and it affecting a heck of a lot more people than just one fellow and his/her attacker.

If you have not an example, that's OK. I was just wondering where you got your facts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their facts. Fear of what-ifs do not make for good policy.

Guillermo
September 21, 2011, 12:55 AM
All I am asking for is an example of firing a gun in a packed stadium and it affecting a heck of a lot more people than just one fellow and his/her attacker

all I am asking for is someone to explain why a cop should be in those areas with a sidearm and I shouldn't.

I won't get an answer because their isn't one.

<deleted>

GLOOB
September 21, 2011, 02:14 AM
all I am asking for is someone to explain why a cop should be in those areas with a sidearm and I shouldn't.
A police officer is a visible deterrent. When the officer is around, most people will not attempt a crime, whether or not he is armed. The uniform is particularly important in a crowded setting. A cop wielding and/or firing a gun is immediately recognizable as a "good guy." And most importantly, the gun is part of the uniform.

No, not everyone can carry a cop around in their back pocket to protect them. In a stadium, your safety is partially in the hands of other people. And no, the security isn't there for your personal protection. They're there to control the mob. That's the price you pay to participate.

with that "logic" police should not be armed in places with population density
Security/police can and have accidentally incited mob rioting during a soccer match. They're human and can make mistakes. And mobs can be unpredictable. But as the event organizer, stadium owner, or whatnot, I'd have to take my chances and try to hire well trained and professional personnel and have a sound plan to handle unexpected disturbances. Also, I misspoke with the term "population density." That could be misinterpreted to include metropolitan areas. I didn't mean that. A football game is different because it's a whole lot of people in an enclosed area that are there to be entertained, turning their collective attention to the event. Turn off the entertainment with a frightening disturbance, or any unusual occurence that distracts from the show, and something bad might happen. In a city, you're generally not sitting shoulder to shoulder, and you're going about your own separate paths, minding your own business. Heck, in some cities people might witness a murder or a rape, and just keep on walking like nothing happened. Gunshots going off, just turn up the TV. Not so in a stadium. If a gun shot went off, everyone would want to know what was going on, people would be talking, and there would be confusion. If for some reason a certain amount of people think it's time to leave, it could snowball from there. When people start climbing over your calm, rational self to get to the exit, you'll have to get up and do the same thing to avoid getting trampled. When everyone is trying to hit the exit at the same time, people will get hurt and killed.

If it is my show, I make the rules. You're free to stay at home and watch on TV. I'm the one that will lose millions in revenue and get sued for millions more if innocent people get hurt. Even in most shall issue states, any store owner can ban firearms by posting the proper sign.

If you have not an example, that's OK. I was just wondering where you got your facts.
That's just me playing devil's advocate and hypothetical what-ifs. My opinions are worth what you paid. Facts? Like I said before, this is just me thinking out loud. See post #240.

makarovnik
September 21, 2011, 05:48 AM
I hate places that don't allow CCW. It forces me to stow my weapon in the car. Ripe for the picking if somebody was staking out the parking lot looking for people who might be stashing a weapon.

Unless I'm drunk or buzzed (doesn't happen very often) the best place for my weapon is on my person. This is the safest place for it as far as everyone is concerned.

Loosedhorse
September 21, 2011, 07:28 AM
The term "greater good" comes to mind, hereAh, the needs of the collective, as determined by the suppositions or desires of the law-makers, trump the life of the individual. I think there's a name for that...

Well, you have a lot to prove. You are requiring that we give up a fundamental right of self-defense because you suppose that it "might" cause panic, stampede, and trampling.

Anyone who's been to stadiums knows that they are built for rapid entrance and exit from the stands. There are choke-points (as anyone who has sat in their car for an hour knows), but they are not at the stands. The walkways below the stands on all levels have a lot of capacity.

The average "gunfight" lasts seconds. It seems to have never happened in a stadium. And yet, you ask us to believe, without proof, the following assumptions:

1. That concealed carry (that is allowing lawful folks to carry guns into stadiums instead of just criminals) will increase the risk of shootings in stadiums
2. That a gunfight lasting seconds will cause a stampede that will last long enough and affect enough people that they will reach a choke-point and begin crushing people, in a stadium that has been specifically designed to prevent that. Like this:

http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx182/fr_larsson/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gifhttp://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx182/fr_larsson/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gifhttp://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx182/fr_larsson/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif


3. In contrast, a policeman shoooting someone would be seen as "comforting" and would not cause panic.

4. Because a gun is part of a policeman's uniform, the sight of that gun does not cause stampede--but the sight of a CCWer's gun would cause stampede. Perhaps because no one at a stadium is actually looking at the spectacle they came to see (or their popcorn, or their girlfriend)--they're looking for guns!

5. That the solution is a law against CCW in stadiums (with or without airport-style sterile area control?).

Hmmmm. Lots of adjectives come to mind, but I'll go with "improbable."

It's a criminal offense to yell "fire" in a crowded stadium when there is not.ALL fire alarms I have experienced have been false alarms (drills and pranks). Because a false fire alarm in a stadium will crush people, then fire alarms in stadiums should be outlawed, too? THAT would be the equivalent of outlawing CCW, right?

A fire alarm's presence seems more likely to cause a false alarm that a true one; and letting a few people burn to death to avoid stampedes--that's all for the greater good, right?A police officer is a visible deterrent.Fine. Post a sign that says "Legal concealed carry welcome." Now THAT's a visible deterrent to criminal attack! And it's effective everywhere in the stadium, not just where a LEO happens to be visible.

As long as we're concerned about the greater good, maybe it can be achieved by respecting fundamental rights, rather than outlawing them.

Sav .250
September 21, 2011, 07:44 AM
I wonder if "that" guy had a weapon instead of a stun-gun, would he have used it? J s/n.

Guillermo
September 21, 2011, 10:55 AM
A police officer is a visible deterrent.
this has nothing to do with why I should not be allowed to carry concealed.

Security/police can and have accidentally incited mob rioting during a soccer match
So disarm them like you would do me

NavyLCDR
September 21, 2011, 11:06 AM
Fine. Post a sign that says "Legal concealed carry welcome." Now THAT's a visible deterrent to criminal attack! And it's effective everywhere in the stadium, not just where a LEO happens to be visible.

The Washington State Ferry System has signs that prohibit the transportation or carrying of illegal firearms on the ferry.

rodinal220
September 21, 2011, 11:49 PM
"Do concealed guns belong in stadiums? "

Absolutely,CCW really doesn't work if you cant carry here and cant carry there.Criminals will adapt and exploit these infringements on your fundamental right.

NMGonzo
September 22, 2011, 06:45 PM
I don't like stadiums and all of you should obey the law regarding such matters.

That being said, one should be allowed to carry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do concealed guns belong in stadiums?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!