Do concealed guns belong in stadiums?

[Leverb66]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I shouldn't lose my right to defend myself just because I walk into a stadium or any other building.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

America has became a land of sheep

sadly that is true

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