Concealed means concealed

[Loosedhorse]

Maybe that should read, "I could care less about what you think is morally correct."

But it doesn't; you're pinging me for responding to what was there, instead of what you would prefer be there?

You say "legal," and thereby imply that should be the only determinant of behavior. I disagree. You say discreet: I could have discreetly just left that hardware store yesterday. Instead, I discreetly paid. Both would have been discreet, but paying felt less sneaky.

it might as well be a religious debate

I'm not sure why you bring up religion. I know you're not suggesting that one religion says defying the sign secretly is fine, but another says it isn't.

If there are two identical establishments within a reasonable distance, the relatively low cost to you

I think we're getting somewhere. If you're saying, sure, when it's of relatively little cost to me to go elsewhere, I will--fine. Then we're only, perhaps, varying on our definitions of what a "little cost" is. If you're saying that, beyond a certain cost, it is "necessary" that you enter that store instead of another, then also fine--there is a well known principle at law and in ethics of "competing harms," and in that instance we should pick the least harm.

Oops--where did my high horse suddenly go? Perhaps I never had one?

I will say that, if the cost of going elsewhere is high enough that entering despite the sign is the lesser of the competing harms, to me that is still entering under false pretenses. It may be justified, but I personally would not claim that such justification then makes the entry an honest one.

With greatest humility, I mean no insult.

I neglected to comment on this yesterday. Thank you, no problem, and I will try to do better at avoiding the appearence of insult or condescension.

You mentioned emotion above; it is in fact my opinion that these are essentially emotional questions--not just emotion-laden, but emotional in a fundamental way. Humans do not (IMHO) simply reason out what fairness is: we feel it, and fairness is important to us. It is therefore perhaps impossible to discuss such a topic without consulting emotion--and emotion is a tricky guide.

 

[Sam1911]

But it doesn't; you're pinging me for responding to what was there, instead of what you would prefer be there?

Fair enough.

You say "legal," and thereby imply that should be the only determinant of behavior.

Not quite. I said there is legal and illegal -- that's part of the equation. I said there is also the question of social consequences -- a second part of the equation. And each person's internal demons -- ethics, fear, conscience, etc, and a definite third part of the equation. My point originally was that I can't fully comprehend and should not be expected to universally share anyone else's burden of that third category.

You say discreet: I could have discreetly just left that hardware store yesterday. Instead, I discreetly paid. Both would have been discreet, but paying felt less sneaky.

Paying kept you from doing something that many folks would consider stealing. I'd imagine that you paid because you have a moral compunction against stealing, not because you don't like to be sneaky. That's why I've paid in similar circumstances, but I'm projecting...

I'm not sure why you bring up religion. I know you're not suggesting that one religion says defying the sign secretly is fine, but another says it isn't.

I bring up religion as an example of a situation where debaters who do not share a conviction regarding the basic tenant of the debate cannot achieve meaningful dialog. The statement that ignoring a lawfully vacuous sign is dishonest is not something that some of us here believe at all. So making ethical judgments based on that belief limits those judgments to relevancy only in a very small sphere -- strictly speaking, only in your mind and we may assume those of others who might believe similar things. (Though certainly not all religions would have an opinion one way or the other on the issue.)

Therefore when you make public declarations that such behaviors are unethical, dishonest, sneaky, etc, you tend to insult those who don't share your basic tenant.

Limiting polite comments to, "I believe that 'x' so I feel I should 'y'..." comes off a lot better than, "I don't much care what you do, or how you rationalize it to make it "okay." Just, please, don't try to tell me that choosing to be dishonest is ethical."

to me that is still entering under false pretenses. It may be justified, but I personally would not claim that such justification then makes the entry an honest one.

No argument with that statement of your opinions on that matter. They aren't my opinions, but what difference does that make?

You mentioned emotion above; it is in fact my opinion that these are essentially emotional questions--not just emotion-laden, but emotional in a fundamental way. Humans do not (IMHO) simply reason out what fairness is: we feel it, and fairness is important to us. It is therefore perhaps impossible to discuss such a topic without consulting emotion--and emotion is a tricky guide.

Ethical, emotional, feelings, fairness? I can't deny the impact of those. If we all were tugged the same way by the same ones we wouldn't have any need for laws. Emotion is a tricky guide, as you say. There are probably more instances, from an ethical standpoint, where the law is a tricky guide as well.

 

[Loosedhorse]

such behaviors are unethical, dishonest, sneaky, etc, you tend to insult those who don't share your basic tenant.

I know that one can always add a self-dismissive "JMHO"--but that to me implies that no discussion is wanted or needed, and no agreement (or reason for disagreement) is sought.

I'm not sure that it's tenets that are involved here, as much as definitions. If one sees a "no guns" sign and enters--should that be considered "honest"? Dishonest? Honesty-neutral? As I implied before, there can be times when it is more ethical to be dishonest than honest, but I don't think that changes what dishonesty is.

many folks would consider stealing

Sure, but I didn't intend to leave without paying, nobody stopped me...so how can it be stealing?

I could argue that it's the store's responsibility to make sure that things like that don't happen--theft detectors and the like--and if those measures are inadequate, I'm not "morally bound" to pay for it once I'm out of the store.

I think this is similar to the idea that a "no guns" store owner gets the noncompliance he deserves if he puts up a sign but no metal detector to enforce it. I mean, I believe a criminal would certainly (as have you have suggested) have that attitude--should we not be concerned at the idea that a "law-abiding citizen" should have exactly the same attitude toward the sign as a criminal?

 

[DAP90]

If one sees a "no guns" sign and enters--should that be considered "honest"? Dishonest? Honesty-neutral?

If one sees a “no guns” sign should that be considered prejudiced? Naive? Unconstitutional?

 

[leadaddict]

I could argue that it's the store's responsibility to make sure that things like that don't happen--theft detectors and the like--and if those measures are inadequate, I'm not "morally bound" to pay for it once I'm out of the store. I think this is similar to the idea that a "no guns" store owner gets the noncompliance he deserves if he puts up a sign but no metal detector to enforce it. I mean, I believe a criminal would certainly (as have you have suggested) have that attitude--should we not be concerned at the idea that a "law-abiding citizen" should have exactly the same attitude toward the sign as a criminal?

That's a valid comparison only if the person in question has no ethical problem with stealing, with or without a sign. Admititly, there are some who don't have any ethical problem stealing, but that would not be most of us.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I could argue that it's the store's responsibility to make sure that things like that don't happen--theft detectors and the like--and if those measures are inadequate, I'm not "morally bound" to pay for it once I'm out of the store.

I think this is similar to the idea that a "no guns" store owner gets the noncompliance he deserves if he puts up a sign but no metal detector to enforce it.

Though the two aren't quite the same (leaving without paying does cause harm), I wouldn't say you were morally wrong in leaving if the cashier was the one to empty the cart. In that case, it was not your intention nor your fault that the item was not paid for, and, in fact, costs you time to correct the error. If you emptied the cart, then it was your mistake, and I believe you have some obligation to correct it. And, of course, the value of the item factors in here. I've left Wal mart having had a tube of chapstick roll into a recess of the cart and not get checked out. To me, the value of my time and the fact that they are a monster of a company that gets literally thousands of dollars from me every year means that I really don't feel guilty about my $0.94 "bonus item". Not enough to lock up my car, walk back in and stand in line again, anyway.

On the other hand, I've been checking out at my LGS and they've forgot to ring up a box of ammo. There, you're talking about a much greater loss to a company that has much less ability to absorb it, and no inconvenience to me to point it out. In that instance, what is right really goes without saying.

As far as theft detectors vs. metal detectors, similar concept. A store may not install theft detectors or may not tag certain items because the amortized cost of doing so exceeds the expected accidental and deliberate shoplifting costs for a given amount of time.

 

[Loosedhorse]

prejudicial? Naive? Unconstitutional?

Perhaps your comment is non-responsive--unless it suggests a "if he's alllowed to be naive, then I'm allowed to be dishonest" school of ethics. I was asking, given the implication that entering a "No guns" shop armed is not dishonest--then exactly what is it, and exactly what is honesty? As I said, I think this gets less at tenets, and more at definitions.

I wouldn't say you were morally wrong in leaving if the cashier was the one to empty the cart.

Well, it was a heavy bag, she didn't want to lift it (just to put it back in) and frankly, neither did I. But I follow your reasoning, and it seems sound to me.

only if the person in question has no ethical problem with stealing

Or if he doesn't define that as stealing--and so can keep his money and his ethics intact!

 

[DAP90]

Perhaps your comment is non-responsive--unless it suggests a "if he's alllowed to be naive, then I'm allowed to be dishonest" school of ethics. I was asking, given the implication that entering a "No guns" shop armed is not dishonest--then exactly what is it, and exactly what is honesty? As I said, I think this gets less at tenets, and more at definitions.

I was suggesting more along the lines of should I be subject to the whims of someone who is prejudiced against me, naive enough to believe that he can keep all guns out and of the opinion that his rules matter more than the laws of the land. It's not an if-then statement.

Also, it would be dishonest to enter a "no gun" establishment and then lie about it if asked directly. It would not be dishonest otherwise. At worst I would call it inconsiderate; assuming that doing so was not against the law.

 

[FNMatt]

I really didn't expect this much discussion when I originally asked the question, but this thread has been very interesting. Honestly, I wasn't trying convince anyone one way or the other, but was asking purely for academic and mental entertainment. Hope anyone didn't get too emotionally involved with the discussion!

 

[leadaddict]

mental entertainment

I think you got your money's worth!

 

[gym]

Is this still about guns? just curious. I was asked to stay today, when a store, "I can't mention the name" was alerted that they were to be robbed. It came from a reliable source, we called the cops, they took about 45 minutes to get there.
It was good intel, no way I would leave the guys alone. even though they have enough stuff there to start a revoution. Everyone was happy everyone was armed. The bad guys hadn't showed up when I left, I am sure when I stop in to sit a while tomorrow, I will be welcome, with or without a weapon, even though it will be with. And I just stopped in to look at pistol. I feel sorry for the poor guys who intend on fulfilling their chosen path, these young men are both competition shooters, in 3 gun and most other disiplines, they shoot a lot better than I do at my old age. Certified FBI instructors, trainers etc
They only have 1 sign, it reads, you are in range now. According to the sherriff, no one has been prosecuted or lost their license for mistakinglly exposing a handgun, during his stay in office, nor anyone in the state that he could find when questioned about open carry. So assuming he didn't lie, your looking at a repremand if you do go into a store and get made. and getting shot if you don't. People get shot everyday, minding their own business, walking around a store shopping. In comes johnny who is high on something, and shoots everyone for whatever reason. Or no reason. Aren't you going to feel embarrased when you have to explain this to St peter. He's going to ask you why did you follow that one and not all the others we have here on record. Like pick up the dog poop, don't run, no smoking, free willy, and don't feed the animals. And what about that time you went in the ladies room because the mens room was full, that's a moral and felonius act. Oh and the seatbelt one, no speeding,Deer crossing, do not park or stand here, stay seated until the airplane comes to a complete stop. Falling rock zone-did you still drive through? that's dangerous.How about, no loaded firarms in the store unless you are shooting on the range floor.Did everyone remove their ammo every time, even from their bug? No reloads, no ammo that wasn't purchased here.Man there sure are a lot of signs, slow down for oncoming traffic? no kids under 12 on this ride. A lot of them say "under penalty of law too. Does everyone come to a complete stop at a stop sign? It's illegal not to.Also to not wash your hands if you work with food and you go potty in some states. Did anyone out the chef. Why are gun signs different? A holyier than thou attitude, for some reason, like you violated one of the ten commandments. You don't even know who put up the sign.It might be some kid who works there part time. I can walk into a store and put up a sign, it could say anything on it, maybe the owner dosen't even see it for a week or thinks someone else got the ok to put it up. I am supposed to base my saftey on the same premiss that you can go to jail for standing up on a flight that hasn't stopped yet, oh that never happens. I don't know anyone who went to jail for it. Or even gave it a second thought. Someone tell me they never knowinglly disobeyed a sign, and I'll call them either a liar or delusional.

 

[Loosedhorse]

At worst I would call it inconsiderate

Fair enough.

Hope anyone didn't get too emotionally involved with the discussion!

What's "too"? From my point of view, why comment at all if you're not involved?

your looking at a repremand if you do go into a store and get made. and getting shot if you don't

Well, around here, you're looking at losing your LTC permanently--barring some McDonald v. Chicago-related change--if you're "made." And there or here, you're almost certainly NOT looking at getting shot if you enter unarmed. In any circumstance where you did enter and get shot, it is NOT a given that having a gun would prevent that--it is not a magic charm. And you can always remain armed, outside.

But to try to get back to ethics: let's suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting made) to entering armed in spite of the sign, and suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting shot) if you enter unarmed, and NO COST to going elsewhere (the competing store is right next door)--which should you do? It has been said that the measure of ethics is what you do when no one knows but you.

 

[brboyer]

Fair enough.What's "too"? From my point of view, why comment at all if you're not involved?
Well, around here, you're looking at losing your LTC permanently--barring some McDonald v. Chicago-related change--if you're "made." And there or here, you're almost certainly NOT looking at getting shot if you enter unarmed. In any circumstance where you did enter and get shot, it is NOT a given that having a gun would prevent that--it is not a magic charm. And you can always remain armed, outside.

But to try to get back to ethics: let's suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting made) to entering armed in spite of the sign, and suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting shot) if you enter unarmed--which should you do? It has been said that the measure of ethics is what you do when no one knows but you.

Well, around here, you're looking at losing your LTC permanently

Thankfully, most of us live in, shall we say, more enlightened communities.

which should you do?

My ethics are sound. I'll do like I do every where, every day - provide for my own, and my families safety - because no one else is responsible for that.

 

[mr_goodbomb]

Would you still visit a friend that asked you not to bring a weapon onto his or her property? I know the argument...you just wouldn't be friends anymore. Well sometimes you still want to be friends so do you abide by their wishes?

A friend and a business are different things. I don't pay my friends for their time and services.

I had a similar situation with credit card charges. I went to a music shop and purchased something like $4 worth of stuff. I handed by debit card over, and the employee/manager told me "we have a $5 minimum on debit cards, you'll have to buy something else." I politely told him that, while I'd buy something else to meet that requirement, he should be careful, because other businesses have had complaints placed by customers for similar policies, and as many debit processing companies don't allow their users to function with such a policy in place, the company will revoke the business's ability to process debit cards. He told me that, because the processing costs something like .30 per transfer, they put a limit in so that they're still making a profit, and that it's his business and he can run it however he wants. I agreed, said "that's fine, I understand, I'm just letting you know, be careful," and he continued to argue, getting more and more angry, to each point I would respond, "that's fine, I understand." While a business can do "whatever they want" within legality because they are on private property, if they aren't compliant with regulation, then their "policy" doesn't mean a thing, and if they push it, you shouldn't shop there.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thankfully, most of us live in, shall we say, more enlightened communities.

"More enlightened"? Such a value-laden, emotional, potentially insulting term...

Oh, wait: I understand! You mean more enlightened as in higher murder rate!

FL 6.4/100k; MA 2.6. 2008 stats.

As to most things, there are pluses and minuses to each of our communities.

 

[9MMare]

Why don't we all do what we want to do, and stop trying to convince others that they should do what we think they should do.
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories. But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.
I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.

Quite some time ago, one of these long and detailed discussions did indeed change my mind on this issue. Almost 180 degrees.

Because of the variety and extent of the opinions, I got a very complete (or near) picture of the different sides of the issue.

You never know when someone 'new' to the issue is reading.

 

[matt_borror]

I understand somebody wanting to KNOW when someone is carrying, but I don't see the point in not allowing them. More than likely they'd never know. If society didn't ignore guns so much there wouldn't be this big mystique surrounding them.

 

[MachIVshooter]

More enlightened"? Such a value-laden, emotional, potentially insulting term...

Oh, wait: I understand! You mean more enlightened as in higher murder rate!

FL 6.8/100k; MA 2.6. 2008 stats.

As to most things, there are pluses and minuses to each of our communities.

To be fair, FL was 6.4

I get that you took what he said as an insult to your home state, which understandably could have been offensive. But resorting to murder statistics and pointing out that your state with tighter controls (couldn't have anything to do with much higher median income, right?.............) is safer??? That's an anti tactic. Why would you do that here on this board???

 

[9MMare]

I understand somebody wanting to KNOW when someone is carrying, but I don't see the point in not allowing them. More than likely they'd never know. If society didn't ignore guns so much there wouldn't be this big mystique surrounding them.

Why?

 

[Neverwinter]

Perhaps your comment is non-responsive--unless it suggests a "if he's alllowed to be naive, then I'm allowed to be dishonest" school of ethics. I was asking, given the implication that entering a "No guns" shop armed is not dishonest--then exactly what is it, and exactly what is honesty? As I said, I think this gets less at tenets, and more at definitions.

An ethical system can consider honesty as secondary to other concepts which are at conflict in a situation. If the other values such as the refusal to relinquish the means by which to defend yourself are ranked higher than than honesty, a virtuous person would reliquish honesty.

Two responses. First, an accurate assessment of the "cost" of going unarmed would be the value of the loss incurred (might be life, property, or injury) times the probability of the loss unarmed minus the probability that the loss would occur even if you were armed (which is not zero). Yes, I know: your life is invaluable to you; for the sake of the calculation, ask your insurance company--they have a different opinion.

I'm not surprised that they have a different opinion. They are making that valuations based on a set of assumptions which are not amenable with my ethical framework, and as a result I reject those as a consideration in my consideration of ethics.

But to try to get back to ethics: let's suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting made) to entering armed in spite of the sign, and suppose there is NO COST (no risk of getting shot) if you enter unarmed, and NO COST to going elsewhere (the competing store is right next door)--which should you do? It has been said that the measure of ethics is what you do when no one knows but you.

If going elsewhere is a viable option, then I would go there. But if there are no viable options, then I am being deprived of access to a category of good/service and will carry in accordance with the law even if there is miniscule punishment(being law abiding as another value).

Quite some time ago, one of these long and detailed discussions did indeed change my mind on this issue. Almost 180 degrees.

Before I started posting here, I was supportive of leaving it in the car. But now that I've had to discuss the rationale of the people who choose not to leave it, I've discovered that I was compromising my ethics and rationalizing it.

On a side note: placing myself in the shoes of a disabled person without the protection of the ADA is a frightening thought exercise.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That's an anti tactic.

Only if I say that our tighter controls are the reason for our lower murder rate. If I state facts as facts--especially if I consider murder a benighted, not an "enlightened" activity for a state--that's anti-gun?

Why would you do that here on this board???

Well, as mentioned, I didn't--but suppose I did? Would I have been run out of this forum on a rail?

I hope I would have received, in that case, welcome, understanding, and calm explanation why the causality (that I did NOT propose) was incorrect. I mean, that's exactly what would have happened, right?

An ethical system can consider honesty as secondary to other concepts which are at conflict in a situation.

Absolutely. And I thought, in my discussion of costs, I made that clear. But again, to me that doesn't change what honesty is.

And, secondarily, I was asking us to be clear about whether entering a "no guns" shop armed is dishonest (or inconsiderate), and if so, what justifies that dishonesty, when going elsewhere is a "reasonable" option.

Thirdly, I dislike secrecy when there are more productive, reasonable choices. If you enter armed secretly, perhaps that benefits you. If you discuss things openly with the owner, write a letter telling him you're taking your business elsewhere, organize a protest, etc....

Well, that could benefit everyone. Ethically speaking, why isn't that "better" than being secretive?

 

[Usmc-1]

I dont have a ccw , was law enforcement , when I carried I never looked at the buildings or signs or any of that , the "Bad guys" arent looking at signs either nor are they paying attention to the rules , Im sure if you were in that book store , and a situation arose that demanded your life and death attention , and your firearm was in your car because your a good law abiding citizen , you would find death staring in the face or many others lives as well , and you would be like the rest of the sheeple , helpless!

Im not advocating breaking the law , but at the same time ,if your firearm is concealed, does the manager really need to know you have one , are you gonna be that conscious to take it off and leave it in your car (where your car could be stolen?) ,Im sorry the whole point of concealed carry is for self protection ; concealment means it isnt in the open where people can see it! If you have to take it off everytime you walk into a building that the government deems unlawful why even carry it? Im telling you this because the bad guys will carry no matter what!

 

[doc.lonestar]

In Texas we have two signs that we must abide by if placed at the door of an establishment: 30.06 or a 51% sign

30.06 is the legal way for them to keep chl holders out while carrying - if posted it is a no go to enter

51% sign just states that they get 51% or more of thier revenue from Alcohol sales (bars, etc) again no go to enter

 

[DAP90]

To be dishonest both parties would have to have agreed to abide by the signs and then the firearm carrier would have to ignore it despite that agreement. In cases where the signs have no force of law both parties have made no such agreement.

It can be considered inconsiderate because the property owner has made a request and the firearms carrier has basically said I don’t care, I’m going to carry anyway.

That cuts both ways though. The property owner is basically saying he doesn’t care what your legal rights are or what your potential risks as an unarmed victim could be; he doesn’t want guns on his property. That is just as inconsiderate.

He may have legitimate reasons such as insurance considerations but they are no more legitimate than the reasons of the firearm carriers for carrying. In many cases there is a strong likelihood the property owners reasons are based more on the fear of guns due to ignorance or misinformation. As I said above, should we be beholden to the whims of the prejudiced or misinformed; especially when society has said via laws that we do not need to be?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Only if I say that our tighter controls are the reason for our lower murder rate. If I state facts as facts--especially if I consider murder a benighted, not an "enlightened" activity for a state--that's anti-gun?

The way it is said implies that it is the correlation you intended to bring to light. You could have chosen standards of living, home values, median incomes, etc. But you opted for a crime rate statistic.

Well, as mentioned, I didn't--but suppose I did? Would I have been run out of this forum on a rail?

I hope I would have received, in that case, welcome, understanding, and calm explanation why the causality (that I did NOT propose) was incorrect. I mean, that's exactly what would have happened, right?

Depends on how you conduct yourself. If people here believe you can be reasoned with, we'll try. But there have certainly been anti trolls who sign up just to ruffle feathers, and it's obvious. Why waste time trying to show such individuals the flaws in their thought process?