You're literally advocating taking guns away from people and disabling them for "safety".
You're literally ignoring the very clear explanation I provided in the same paragraph you pulled that sentence from.
What I'm saying that if you want to go on someone else's property you need to follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, you don't go on their property. In exactly the same way you would expect someone to stay off your property if they weren't willing to follow your rules.
Furthermore, I haven't said I was in favor of such rules. I have simply explained why they exist and admitted that I can understand the reasoning of people who make them. What I'm advocating is just common courtesy and respecting property rights.
The arguments utilized are similar, regardless of motivation.
Since motivation is key, your point is--well, it's not really a point at all, is it.
You would be hard pressed to find someone who tries to "follow the rules" with regards to third party polices while engaging in their daily lives than myself- standing in the correct line, being under 20 items in the grocery speed checkout, parking in the appropriate business spaces, etc. However, when it has ZERO impact on their operations, I am not sacrificing my safety or my family's safety just to appease a liability lawyer. Sorry- that is my personal policy and it's not open to adjustment.
1. Nobody's saying you have to follow their policy--unless you want to be on their premises. If you don't want to follow their policies you are absolutely free to be somewhere else. Just as you would expect someone to follow your policies and rules in your house/on your property or at your gunshow (if you had one). You are just as entitled to your personal policies are they are to their public ones. But on their property, their policies are what matter, not yours--just as someone can't come into your house and make their own rules contrary to yours. Where did you come up with the idea that you can go anywhere you want and regardless of where you go, everyone is required to comply with your personal policies and preferences? That is simply not remotely realistic. If you had a business, would you allow people to come into it and make their own policies that were counter to your posted rules?
2. Nobody is telling you to sacrifice your safety or your family's safety. If you feel unsafe at a venue with such a policy, you are certainly free to stay away.
3. Since nobody goes to a gunshow with a loaded gun thinking that they are going to have an impact on the operations of the gunshow, the fact that any given person avers that their actions won't have an impact doesn't mean anything. It's not like people say: "I'm going to take my gun to a gunshow today and have an unintentional discharge." Even saying it makes it obvious how silly that idea is. Besides, the policy isn't: "Don't bring a loaded gun on the property unless it won't have any impact on our operations."
In actuality, it does on de facto basis.
In actuality, it most certainly does not. Even in your case you COULD carry from your car to the front door--it just wouldn't be your preference. Surely you understand the difference between preference and prohibition, right? A person who prefers not to eat broccoli is not prohibited from eating broccoli--they don't eat it because they don't want to, not because there is a rule against it.
You are the one who brought up driving, not me.
Let me try again. The example of drivers rating themselves above average is an analogy. It is an example of human behavior that provided insight into the topic at hand. The point of the analogy was the behavior of humans, particularly as it applies to self-assessment, not the operation of vehicles. Driving itself is, of course, totally irrelevant to this topic. Does that help?
Just a question- Does wearing a t-shirt with a large bold printed four-letter word under your sweatshirt violate a mall's "No vulgar clothing" policy, even if it can't be seen? Yes or no.
Interesting, It seems that you do understand the general concept of analogies. Unless you are trying to say that a person can have an unintentional discharge with an item of clothing and potentially injure or kill another person and I do not believe that is what you mean to say at all.
Here is the answer to your question. Go to the mall, and at the entry point, show the mall employee the shirt and ask them if wearing it under a cover garment violates their policy. You can ask them to give you a simple yes/no answer, if that is your preference.
You can use exactly the same approach at the gunshow with your loaded carry gun.
