Do concealed guns belong in stadiums?

[Mike1234567]

Whoever said they would drink while carrying?

 

[Loosedhorse]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<Attempt at avoiding answering posted question ignored>

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

 

[Sam1911]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Unfortunately, it appears that the answer is that nobody here knows of stadia where CC is allowed.

 

[Exeter]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 opinion

Were 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]

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]

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]

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 part

Not 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]

I'm scared of this thread... *shakes in boots* *wets pants*

 

[Sam1911]

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]

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.