Concealed means concealed

[MachIVshooter]

I did say "may be."

Actually, you said "I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one."

I know when I tell someone "Quite likely", it's a little more positive than "maybe". I don't think I'm the only person who'd interpret it that way, either.

I don't know your definition of what a "pro gun but gun control works" mentality would be!

Basically anyone who believes that we should have guns, but that the government has a right to place restrictions on them. Fudds, for example.

I have the GOA/RMGO attitude. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that, and if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, they're too dangerous to be running around loose in society, because no amount of regulation is going to stop them from procuring one.

I believe we should be able to own any firearm, no matter it's rate of fire, bore diameter or destructive potential. I believe we should be able to carry them everywhere, including the white house and airplanes. I believe the founding fathers understood that a government with greater armament than it's constituency not only has the ability to become tyrannical, but also the inclination.

 

[rellascout]

I think that, with the exception of good-weather, low-traffic speed limits, I tend to obey the letter of the law. Is "following the spirit of the law" code-speak for breaking the law when the chances of getting caught (or other perceived consequences) are low?

No in fact in this instance I believe the spirit of the law goes well beyond the law that is on the books. I believe that the actual law on the books does not give the property owner their due rights and respect.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I believe that the actual law on the books does not give the property owner their due rights and respect.

How so? Even in states where the sign alone does not have force of law, there are ways that a business owner can enforce a prohibition with the law behind him. Here in CO, for example, all they have to do is install metal detectors at every public entrance and have full time security personnel. Or skip the walk through detectors and have the guards scan every single patron with a wand before entry. If they do that, carrying becomes a violation of C.R.S. 18-12-214 (4)(a),(b),(c).

Not my problem if they're not concerned enough to install the machines and hire the guards. The provision exists if they are really that hell bent on a gun free zone. Otherwise, I'll assume they're just not that worried about it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I did say "may be."

Actually, you said "I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one."

QED. But perhaps you're upset that I said you might be right?

Basically anyone who believes that we should have guns, but that the government has a right to place restrictions on them

Start a thread, and we may discover who agrees with you. (BTW, governments don't have rights, they have powers).

I believe the spirit of the law goes well beyond the law that is on the books.

Got you now. The way I would phrase it (you don't have to agree, obviously) is that there is an ethical principle behind the law, and that the ethical principle may extend beyond where the law stops.

I guess that depends on the particular law. It is hard to discern, for example, any clear ethical principle in the tax laws--it's more of a game. So, you follow the rules, and don't try to guess at the principle.

In other cases, there is no law, but there is a spirit. Except in maritime law, there is no legal duty between unacquainted parties to render aid in time of distress. But, I think, the spirit is that all who are able should.

But where there is a clear "spirit" behind the law--and the spirit and the law embody principles I agree with--then I go "beyond" the law to obey the spirit.

You mentioned above, that there are no universals. Just thought I'd mention I disagree with that; I believe we can define some...maybe more than some.

 

[rellascout]

How so? Even in states where the sign alone does not have force of law, there are ways that a business owner can enforce a prohibition with the law behind him. Here in CO, for example, all they have to do is install metal detectors at every public entrance and have full time security personnel. Or skip the walk through detectors and have the gaurds scan every single patron with a wand before entry. If they do that, carrying becomes a violation of C.R.S. 18-12-214 (4)(a),(b),(c).

Not my problem if they're not concerned enough to not install the machines and hire the guards. The provision exists if they are really that hell bent on a gun free zone. Otherwise, I'll assume they're just not that worried about it.

Perfect example of the rationalization I am talking about. Your concept of self defense and your need to carry is so axiomatic to your subjective "web of belief" that you cannot see that the property owner should not have to go through all that. He or she already informed you that you cannot enter with a concealed weapon/handgun. Why do they bare the burden to force your compliance?

 

[gym]

Owen, Bin Laden was shot in the head by a Kimber 45,older model, intentionally, there were no misses. I first was told it was a Sig but that was corrected yesterday. What does that have to do with anything? It was a kill mission, there were never any plans of bringing him back to stand trial and putting more innocents at risk witha a lengthy trial and a dragged out situation that surely would have resulted in more loss of life.
They can't and never will admit to this but thats what it was. the woman was dropped, to stop her from shielding him, notice she was not killed. They even said it a few times before they realised what they were saying, they were under orders to kill him, not to take him alive, that has nothing to do with this.
And dangerous to who, to me, you or the guy coming in with 3 buddies to rob the place?
Do you think those guys are a danger if they want to go buy an ice cream cone and there is a sign outside? Or would you rather they be in the store. I would rather they were in any store I was in.
On missing, I wouldn't have to shoot if they didn't come in to rob, I can't make the assumption that, "they" are just going to rob the owner, and not hurt anyone, it almost never happens like that. Unfortunatelly people do miss but that is another topic, it's stretching the boundries.

 

[rellascout]

You mentioned above, that there are no universals. Just thought I'd mention I disagree with that; I believe we can define some...maybe more than some.

I disagree but that is another topic entirely.

But where there is a clear "spirit" behind the law--and the spirit and the law embody principles I agree with--then I go "beyond" the law to obey the spirit.

And there is the subjectivity. If you agree with the law then you follow it or go above and beyond. I think that property rights are just as important as the right to self defense. So I act accordingly. YMMV and that is OK. I however think the property owner should have more recourse if they have properly posted their property.

 

[gym]

I don't agree, the state and federal laws are enough without individuals making up their own.

 

[DAP90]

IMHO the spirit of the law is that the property owner has rights. When you willingly enter their property you should respect those rights.

It is your opinion that when you enter their property you should respect those rights. The law is pretty clear on the subject.

To be clear I don't necessarily disagree. If a property is posted and you can easily go elsewhere to get what you need then you probably should.

If you can't then I don't agree that the property owners rights automatically override my own in situations when he set up a public shop. Like me, he should be aware of the laws and what they entailed when he set up his shop.

He can't simply choose to ignore the law that says I can go on his property any more than I can choose to ignore a law that says I can't. Well, we both can but at some cost.

IMHO Exercising your rights should not come at the trampling of someone elses. The property owner has the right to determine who is and is not armed on their property. Those who object think that their right to self defense overrides the property rights of the owner. They then also justify this trampling by saying its not illegal.

Somebodies rights are getting trampled in these cases. In some states the property owner wins. In others it's the firearm carrier.

 

[MachIVshooter]

He or she already informed you that you cannot enter with a concealed weapon/handgun. Why do they bare the burden to force your compliance?

I can post "no trespassing" signs, but without 12' fences topped with razor wire and nasty dogs running around inside that perimiter, I don't really expect that no one would dare enter just because of a silly sign.

And on that note, even if it were posted, I wouldn't be bothered by someone cutting across my acreage to save time getting home (maybe their car broke down and my property is between the road and theirs and that shortcut saves them considerable time), so long as they don't damage anything. I would see this as being similar to carrying against a policy, so long as you do what is suggested in the title of this thread and keep it concealed.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I don't really expect that no one would dare enter just because of a silly sign.

I would expect that no honest (or maybe no polite) person would enter without a good reason; and even with a good reason, he would likely ask first, if circumstances permitted. And because of that expectation that a trespasser is not polite and honest, I will formulate a different response than I would if the sign said, "Everyone welcome."

But you get to an important point here: we seem to have varied expectations. Some say a sign means what it says, some say it doesn't. For example:

I wouldn't be bothered by someone cutting across my acreage...so long as they don't damage anything.

My immediate response is, well, then don't put up "No Trespassing" signs, put up "Don't Damage Anything" signs! I mean, I live in exurbia/suburbia, and if I put up a no trespassing sign (I don't), I mean no trespassing. But in a very rural community with fewer by-ways, my attitude might be different.

What is the "reasonable expectation" of someone hanging a no-guns sign? That "good people" will comply, or that they will (silently) refuse to?

And do the owner's reasonable expectations matter?

 

[9MMare]

IMHO the spirit of the law is that the property owner has rights. When you willingly enter their property you should respect those rights.

IMHO Exercising your rights should not come at the trampling of someone elses. The property owner has the right to determine who is and is not armed on their property. Those who object think that their right to self defense overrides the property rights of the owner. They then also justify this trampling by saying its not illegal. Which IMHO is a red herring leading to a strawman.

And you continually seem to miss that he is not respecting the legal gun carrier's rights.

Is he not trampling mine? (I find that wording a bit extreme, a bit...dramatic....but it's your wording).

Like I said earlier, he is none the wiser AND he may well benefit from my patronage. He is harmed in no way. I, OTOH, AM aware of the infringement on my rights and am possibly opened up to dangers.

 

[9MMare]

The problem with using pistols for self defense in crowded places is that stray bullets put everyone in the area at risk, and don't say that you are not going to miss. The best miss when the target is shooting back and according to the news, this includes the Navy Seal who fired the first shot at Bin Laden who was unarmed. Look at the statistics for police gun fights and you will find a really lousy hit to miss ratio. Also, bullets often pass through people and glance off hard cover. Some property owners are aware of this and don't want this potential problem. You may have a natural right to defend yourself but you do not have a right to put others in harms way while doing so. There is just no way to have a safe gun fight in a crowd and that is usually the reason for the sign.

By considering this a 'problem' you immediately call into question the judgement and skills of every CC'er. Carrying a firearm does not mean using it, as many here have said, there are many options for SD and many of us have more than one option/weapon at any time, including avoidance, calling 911, CQC, etc. However, it IS a right.

Do you also think it would be fair to judge all auto drivers in the same way? We all get a license, after basic testing. Period. And we see daily the results of that system. But no one is excluding them from the roads 'for no demonstrated reason.'

 

[MachIVshooter]

But in a very rural community with fewer by-ways, my attitude might be different

It would really have to be. Neighbor's animals get loose and wander, so they may cross the fence to retrieve them. Neighborhood kids take short cuts. It's a different world out here; We fence critters in, not people out.

No doubt having grown up in this atmosphere has, in part, contributed to my attitude of no harm no foul. People who live in communities like mine aren't so defensive and suspicious by and large, unless we have a reason to be, and tend to be quite tolerant of harmless trespass.

If I were to catch someone hunting on my land, different story. For that, you'd better ask permission.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I believe (and in many repects, the law agrees) that open to the public businesses are held to a different standard of tolerance, my own included.

 

[Neverwinter]

I could also argue that what both parties have agreed to is to follow the law. That given our cultural diversity no other ethical consensus or agreement can be implied.

I would argue that in states where signs have no force of law society has determined it is OK (ethical?) to ignore such signs up until you are asked to leave; and that by opening a shop in such a state the owner has agreed to those conditions.

This does bring up a good point. A shop owner can post a sign indicating that Sharia must be followed, but it will not have the force of law. The owner can take precautions to ensure the enforcement of his own sign, but society has decided that it will not protect that particular property right. In a Muslim system of government, the situation might be different.

How does one follow the "spirit" of, say, a drunk-driving law? "Yeah, I was probably 0.09--but that's not so bad, and I was fine!" What is the "spirit" of a school zone speed limit; as long as I look really carefully, I can speed? Or the spirit of a tax law?

The spirit of a law is a murky entity. There are a few approaches to determining the spirit. It could be interpreted as the intent of the individuals who have introduced the law. It could be interpreted as the understanding of the law by those who enacted it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The problem with using pistols for self defense in crowded places is that stray bullets put everyone in the area at risk

Yes, they do. So what?

Don't misunderstand: I am not cavalier about the possiblility of injuring innocents--heck, I or my daughter could be that by-stander. It is absolutely incumbent on the defender that he shoot only when innocent life and limb are in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger, and that he be competent with his chosen mode of defense.

Still, the danger is created by the attacker--by his choice, not by the choice of the defender. Nevertheless, the defender will be held accountable for the landing place of each of his bullets.

None of these is good reason to go unarmed in crowded places--do we expect LEOs to do that?

society has decided that it will not protect that particular property right

There is law, there is ethics, and there is "little ethics": etiquette, or politeness. Manners.

What is the legal thing, what is the right thing, and what is the nice thing to do.

I'm hearing a lot of, "if it's legal, I can do it." And here I was thinking that an armed society is a polite society!

 

[Neverwinter]

Yes, they do. So what?

Don't misunderstand: I am not cavalier about the possiblility of injuring innocents--heck, I or my daughter could be that by-stander. It is absolutely incumbent on the defender that he shoot only when innocent life and limb are in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger, and that he be competent with his chosen mode of defense.

For people placing property rights as equal to self defense, the defender could also shoot when his property is in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger.

There is law, there is ethics, and there is "little ethics": etiquette, or politeness. Manners.

What is the legal thing, what is the right thing, and what is the nice thing to do.

I'm hearing a lot of, "if it's legal, I can do it." And here I was thinking that an armed society is a polite society!

Doing what is legal, doing what is right, and doing what is defined by societal norms are three aspects which can be present in varying degrees for a given behavior. Maybe something which is both legal and right might be worth the sacrifice of not conforming to the social mores. If something is both legal and is common societal behavior, should that override the aspect of doing what is right when making your decision?

 

[Loosedhorse]

common societal behavior

Who said good manners was "common societal behavior"? The two rarest things I know of are common sense and common courtesy.

As to your question, I probably can't answer generally, I'd need a specific case.

the defender could also shoot when his property is in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger.

Well, people will do what they can live with. I personally wouldn't be wanting to explain--even to myself--why I errantly shot someone's daughter, in order to defend my stereo. I probably wouldn't even want to explain why I shot the 17 y/o who tried to steal it. YMMV.

But if you're saying that property owners excluding whomever they choose from their property (including gun carriers) equates property rights and SD, I disagree. Just stay armed, and stay out.

 

[Owen Sparks]

For people placing property rights as equal to self defense, the defender could also shoot when his property is in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger.

Here is what things look like when the potential thief knows you will not defend your property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfkk5D8-8o&feature=player_embedded

Watch this and then come back and tell me why a human life is always worth more than a six pack of beer.

 

[brboyer]

Anyone post this yet?

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
-Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Neverwinter]

Who said good manners was "common societal behavior"? The two rarest things I know of are common sense and common courtesy.

As to your question, I probably can't answer generally, I'd need a specific case.

We can called it "societal norms" or "social mores" or whatever phrasing you would prefer. The defining characteristic of that behavior is that it intended to be the shared(i.e. common) behavior that is expected of other people in the society. There may be people who place no value on that. Others may place a value of it, but place it under other their other values such as doing what is legal or doing what is right. By asking those people to obey a sign, you are asking them to act contrary to what is legal and their ethics in preference of "etiquette".

My last question was a rhetorical one, to get people to understand what they are asking of others. While it took me a while to finally state in plainly, that has been the point of my involvement in the thread.

Well, people will do what they can live with. I personally wouldn't be wanting to explain--even to myself--why I errantly shot someone's daughter, in order to defend my stereo. I probably wouldn't even want to explain why I shot the 17 y/o who tried to steal it. YMMV.

But if you're saying that property owners excluding whomever they choose from their property (including gun carriers) equates property rights and SD, I disagree. Just stay armed, and stay out.

Here is what things look like when the potential thief knows you will not defend your property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfkk...layer_embedded

Watch this and then come back and tell me why a human life is always worth more than a six pack of beer.

Those are two sets of people. Based on Owen's post, I would bet that the proportion of overlap is statistically significant.

 

[Owen Sparks]

All laws are eventually backed up by the threat of death, even the most trivial minor offences. Suppose you get a parking ticket and don’t pay it? A “failure to appear” goes on your driving record and the next time the police run your tag for something routine it will show up. Now you are driving with an outstand warrant and you will be taken downtown. But what if you don’t want to be arrested? Then the police will use whatever amount of force is necessary to put you in the back of the cruiser. Resisting arrest is a serious offence and justifies the use of force. They will try not to injure you If you resist effectively enough they will shoot you and kill you.

When civilians are not allowed to respond to an escalating situation in the same manor by using whatever amount of force is necessary to protect their property situations like the one in the video are the ultimate results. Just calling the police after the fact does little good in recovering stolen property unless you know the thief.

 

[Loosedhorse]

By asking those people to obey a sign, you are asking them to act contrary to what is legal and their ethics in preference of "etiquette".

Perhaps. I thought I was giving them two ways to stay armed if that's what their ethics mandate (stay out, or ignore the sign), with one of those choices also being well-mannered. (At least better mannered, and arguably more ethical...but I won't argue that for now).

If something is both legal and is common societal behavior, should that override the aspect of doing what is right when making your decision?

Well, let's have another look at this, then.

It may be (and is in some places) legal to enter a "no-guns"-signed store while carrying concealed (with proper license, if required). Is it "common societal behavior" that such a sign is ignored? I don't know. My sense is that a higher percentage of those carrying illegally would ignore it than lawful carriers; if that's true, does that tell us something about the "rightness" of ignoring the sign?

Taking a different tack, slavery (and then later, separate but "equal" ) was legal and "common" in its day; opinions varied (then) about whether slavery was "right." Those who thought it wasn't perhaps made more headway by attacking it openly than secretly, but both were done.

 

[Neverwinter]

It may be (and is in some places) legal to enter a "no-guns"-signed store while carrying concealed (with proper license, if required). Is it "common societal behavior" that such a sign is ignored? I don't know. My sense is that a higher percentage of those carrying illegally would ignore it than lawful carriers; if that's true, does that tell us something about the "rightness" of ignoring the sign?

It tells you absolutely nothing, unless you are a strict deontological ethicist. Because two people perform the same activity, the comparisons that you can make between the two people because of their ethics do not have an implication as to the ethics of the activity. The ethics of an activity stand on its own merits, not on the merits of those who partake in it.

The common and shared behavior expected by society is not to ignore signs. I do so if and when other conflicting ethical and legal concerns are lacking.

Taking a different tack, slavery (and then later, separate but "equal" ) was legal and "common" in its day; opinions varied (then) about whether slavery was "right." Those who thought it wasn't perhaps made more headway by attacking it openly than secretly, but both were done.

Both are being done these days at the individual business level(eg. gunbuster business cards) up to the governmental level.

All laws are eventually backed up by the threat of death, even the most trivial minor offences. Suppose you get a parking ticket and don’t pay it? A “failure to appear” goes on your driving record and the next time the police run your tag for something routine it will show up. Now you are driving with an outstand warrant and you will be taken downtown. But what if you don’t want to be arrested? Then the police will use whatever amount of force is necessary to put you in the back of the cruiser. Resisting arrest is a serious offence and justifies the use of force. They will try not to injure you If you resist effectively enough they will shoot you and kill you.

When civilians are not allowed to respond to an escalating situation in the same manor by using whatever amount of force is necessary to protect their property situations like the one in the video are the ultimate results. Just calling the police after the fact does little good in recovering stolen property unless you know the thief.

If you would like to discuss the difference between the powers afforded a private individual vs law enforcement, feel free to start another thread. But don't derail this one.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The ethics of an activity stand on its own merits, not on the merits of those who partake in it

How can they stand on their own? Ethics presuppose people interacting. One need not be a "strict deontological ethicist" to take note of what people actually do, and how they feel about it.

Ethics can tell you which values are in conflict in in a given situation--how do they tell you which of values you should choose as governing, and which as subordinate? That takes value judgment, and that's the job of individuals--or groups of them.