Open carry Texas

[Skyyr]

No, not if the fear was irrational. But in this case...

Yet again, pure irony. You realize that guns are among the less-used weapons of violent crimes, correct? Yet you fear them because they could be used in a crime, while you are fully unafraid of cars, bats, screwdrivers, and so forth.

That meets the very definition of irrational.

[PR3D4TOR]

The issue is whether or not it DOES distress people.  Doesn't matter whether it should or not.

I find that extremely wrong and unjust. If I'm afraid of dogs it should have no bearing on my neighbors right to own one and walk it in public.

[Skyyr]

I find that extremely wrong and unjust. If I'm afraid of dogs it should have no bearing on my neighbors right to own one and walk it in public.

Bingo.

[Skuzzy]

True, but that's kind of a circular argument. Akin to guns are illegal because they're scary - guns are scary because they're illegal.

In this case it is not fear.  Like I said before, if someone carrying a gun has no respect for the rights of the business owner, then I am going to err to caution that they probably have little respect for me, or anyone around them, as well.

I would call it simple prudence, not fear.

There are legitimate reasons a business may not want guns on the premises.  Bars, are an extreme, but shining example of a business which is prudent in not allowing firearms inside.

Business owners also want to be absolved of any liability.  If the insurance company is going to raise rates based on allowing guns to be carried, well,..there you go.

Fear is not the only motivator in making these decisions.

[Skyyr]

In this case it is no fear.  Like I said before, if someone carrying a gun has no respect for the rights of the business owner, then I am going to err to caution that they probably have little repect for me, or anyone around them, as well.

I would call it simple prudence, not fear.

There are legitimate reasons a business may not want guns on the premises.  Bars, are an extreme, but shining example of a business which is prudent in not allowing firearms inside.

I agree with this.

Also, the idea of owning firearms, Constitutionally, is based on personal liberty. What then does it say when a gun owner insists on taking his firearms onto private property that has banned such weapons? It's a two-way street. You can't argue for gun personal rights and then ignore the right to others' personal property.

[Someguy63]

It is ironic that you quote evolution and social habits as a argument against carrying guns. You do realize that survival of the fittest and outclassing one's competitors are some of the main factors that dictate survival according to evolution, right? Every one of those arguments is pro-gun.

Correlation does not imply causation, however, and that is not why carrying weapons is or should be allowed. It is done for a much deeper reason seated in personal liberty.

I noticed you ended your argument that you have "every right to fear" - please show me where evolution cared once for anything's right to fear.

No. I didn't mention our survival through evolution. Look at different species and their methods of asserting dominance or aggresiveness, aka, a threat to other species amongst them? It litters species both extinct and in existence.

Fear is defined by nature as threat to one's existence or that of which the specimen exists with? For example some species may like to appear bigger to their predator, and what does the predator do? Back off in fear of facing something bigger than it.

Never once did I mention that evolution gives a crap about who is scared. The point was to evaluate why the hell people are scared of guns being carried visible to those around them.

I just used evolution as a timeline to write some notes under to support my point.

[PR3D4TOR]

We are in total agreement on that Skuzzy.

[Skyyr]

No. I didn't mention our survival through evolution. Look at different species and their methods of asserting dominance or aggresiveness, aka, a threat to other species amongst them? It litters species both extinct and in existence.

Fear is defined by nature as threat to one's existence or that of which the specimen exists with? For example some species may like to appear bigger to their predator, and what does the predator do? Back off in fear of facing something bigger than it.

Never once did I mention that evolution gives a crap about who is scared. The point was to evaluate why the hell people are scared of guns being carried visible to those around them.

I just used evolution as a timeline to write some notes under to support my point.

Many people are afraid of clowns - the official name for the condition is coulrophobia. Is that a threat to their existence?

Guns are not one of the leading instruments of death or violence in the US (contrary to the media, as you can pull the actual violence statistics from FBI.gov), therefore to fear them more than cars is, once again, quite literally irrational.

Your argument just fell apart.

[Someguy63]

Many people are afraid of clowns - the official name for the condition is coulrophobia. Is that a threat to their existence?

Guns are not one of the leading instruments of death or violence in the US (contrary to the media, as you can pull the actual violence statistics from FBI.gov), therefore to fear them more than cars is, once again, quite literally irrational.

Your argument just fell apart.

You missed the point.

Name the clown in an African grassland food chain. There is none.
You're using a product that is unnatural to the origin from which I stated fear came.

[Wiley]

Your personal rights end at the tip of your neighbor's nose. Your "right" to fear does not allow your fear to supersede their right to own a weapon, just as their (hypothetical) right to fear your ability to reproduce (and potentially be a rapist) does not supersede your right to have and raise a family.

Cool.  Why can't you own an assault rifle or an armed vehicle then?  They'd be a lot more useful for personal defense than a pistol.

Why not have personal ownership of explosive devices?  Your "right" to fear shouldn't supersede your neighbor's right to own such a weapon, right?  You never know when you might need a claymore.

I find that extremely wrong and unjust. If I'm afraid of dogs it should have no bearing on my neighbors right to own one and walk it in public.

It really bugs me that I can't outfit my property with man traps.  It's just not fair.

Wiley.

[Skyyr]

You missed the point.

Name the clown in an African grassland food chain. There is none.
You're using a product that is unnatural to the origin from which I stated fear came.

First off, guns do not "hunt" people and most certainly it cannot eat them. I'm not sure where you're at in your scholarly studies, but a gun cannot hunt someone and eat them.

You just defined fear as:

Fear is defined by nature as threat to one's existence

Statistically speaking, guns are not a threat to one's existence. If guns are still to be considered a threat to one's existence, then cars, fast food, smoking, power tools, and many other items are even bigger threats to one's existence.

Yet again, your argument is quite literally irrational.

[Skyyr]

So you're telling me you can drive down to your local Walmart in a Humvee with a loaded M2 in back and a crate of grenades on the seat beside you?

I was not aware of that.  What happens to you if you use any of it?

Wiley.

Don't try to twist the argument, Wiley. You said they couldn't be owned. Just because you can't purchase them at Walmart does not mean you can't own them.

That being said, I love Walmart. Guess what I did buy last time I went to Walmart? 3,500 rounds of 9mm. I can also buy dynamite at my local co-op.

[Someguy63]

First off, guns do not "hunt" people and most certainly it cannot eat them. I'm not sure where you're at in your scholarly studies, but a gun cannot hunt someone and eat them.

You just defined fear as:

Statistically speaking, guns are not a threat to one's existence. If guns are still to be considered a threat to one's existence, then cars, fast food, smoking, power tools, and many other items are even bigger threats to one's existence.

Yet again, your argument is quite literally irrational.

You are still missing it. I don't call a gun a living creature.

[Wiley]

You CAN own an armed vehicle, you CAN own an assault weapon, and you CAN own explosive devices.

Nice try, it sounded good.

So you're telling me you can drive down to your local Walmart in a Humvee with a loaded M2 in back and a crate of grenades on the seat beside you?

I was not aware of that.  What happens to you if you use any of it?

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

A VERY common sight in Switzerland, which mandates its citizens own assault weapons.

(Image removed from quote.)

skyyer don't forget all the shootings that have happened in Switzerland where people are required to have assault weapons.   including the one a few days ago.  neighbor got shot went he went to investigate when he heard shots.

semp