Are Guns Silencing Free Speech?

[nismaratwork]

You have some points but you are impossible to converse with. I don't have an "ignore" button but I'm pushing it anyway.

You'd be surprised how willing I am to take chances given a sincere attempt by the other party. I don't recall us ever getting off on the right foot, but then, I recognize that I'm abrasive and verbose... and that they are faults that some find too repellent. We COULD stick to a "just the facts" exchange, sans humor, sarcasm, or insults, and work from there...

 

[JaredJames]

He specifically said he would carefully watch an individual that is open-carrying, and would tackle that individual if they "made a move" that looked like they were going for their weapon. Why keep such a watchful eye on a law-abiding citizen? Is he expecting them to perpetrate a violent crime with the weapon they're freely showing off?

Legal or not, when it comes to choosing a random stranger with a gun or one without, I know which one I'm going to be watching.

I agree with the above, in that not being suspicious of a person you don't know with a gun is a slightly worrying thing.

 

[nismaratwork]

He specifically said he would carefully watch an individual that is open-carrying, and would tackle that individual if they "made a move" that looked like they were going for their weapon. Why keep such a watchful eye on a law-abiding citizen? Is he expecting them to perpetrate a violent crime with the weapon they're freely showing off?

See post 50.

I'm sorry, what kind of person DOESN'T assign a higher priority to someone who is openly carrying a weapon? As has been mentioned earlier, we do the same for a guy who looks like he eats his barbells rather than lifting them. I'm not concerned that they'll commit a crime, I'm simply aware of the situation and the fact that they're armed.

Oh, and again, there is no "freely showing off" a weapon... there is wearing it, drawing it, firing it, and brandishment. The first is an insurance policy (in my view), the second is an act purely with the intent to kill, and the latter is a crime and NOT the act of a responsible gun owner.

Wearing a gun openly is not, "showing it off", and if that IS the reason... that person shouldn't own a gun. They're not toys, they're single-purpose tools which aren't good or bad, but they are only useful for killing. What the hell are you showing off, the shared capacity for limited violence?

Again, for SD carry concealed, and for HD, it's not an issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll just say it: in a nation where there is no need to carry openly, doing so marks you as someone to be watched. Beyond that, logically: if you're in a room, some people are martial artists, some have knives, and some have pistols.

I don't know about you, but for me I tier that into:

Gun
Knife
Bare-Hands

After all, I could be Bruce Lee, and you could punch holes in me from 20 feet away before I can close distance. If you don't think of these things... maybe carrying in public isn't something you need to be doing, openly or otherwise.

 

[alt]

Wrong. A small hand gun makes a petite woman as strong as a huge man. Having firearms isn't about displaying power or threatening individuals. It's a fundamental question: are you allowed to use deadly force to protect your life? Don't try to make it more complicated than that; anything else is an argument from either ignorance or fear.

As far as displaying a firearm, I don't feel particularly threatened. I'm aware of it; that's for sure! But, in general, the folks displaying firearms are not the criminals. I have a friend who has an AR15, an H&K 9mm, and a concealed-carry permit. Ask me if I feel safer with him around or less safe. I hope the answer is obvious.

My friend is a good guy who has studied handgun law, home defense law, and who practices shooting almost every week, so why would I assume that every other person I run into with a firearm is an exception? In fact, most people carrying around firearms are very likely to be obsessed with personal freedom.

In New Hampshire we don't need permits or licenses to own handguns or rifles. Furthermore, you don't need anything more than a few references to get a concealed-carry permit. I think people who are frightened by the mere idea of a gun being near them are simply unexposed or ill-informed.

So, to the OP... no, a handgun would not deter me from speaking openly. In many cases (not all) it would incite me to speak more freely! And if the gentleman with the firearm were behaving belligerently, I would give him the same wide berth as if he were unarmed.

Flex, I agree with all you said, word for word here !

 

[alt]

I can't find a scientific study of the gun = intimidation scenario.

There are a number of news media links showing that there is an intimidation factor.

I do know that several months ago a process server showed up at my door mistakenly. When I argued with him about his mistake he didn't hesitate to display a weapon by opening his jacket.

Shortly a vehicle pulled up and a second man, this one carrying open in a holster, and walked onto my property.

These guys carried an Identification badge that anyone could make on a computer.

Take my word for it I was intimidated. These jerks work for private companies not law enforcement.

Any unarmed person should feel intimidated when confronted by a stranger with a weapon. Its a part of the survival instinct.

I Know, I Know, guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

BTW I own two pistols two rifles and two shotguns.

Take my word for it I was intimidated.

I would have given them the finger and told them to #*&% off my property.

 

[redpenguin]

It really depends on the community. Here in the suburbs, people are a lot less familiar with the laws and would probably even call the cops if I walked into a Walmart with my pistol (despite our optional open carry laws). When I go further up north though, people don't even give me a second glance. They know the laws. Hell, they probably have numerous firearms of their own.

In all honesty, police officers have always treated me with an elevated amount of respect when they find out I am a licensed carrier. It just comes down to the fact that I don't want to deal with that mess for an hour or two if someone mistakenly calls the cops on me.

The main reason why I choose to CONCEAL around here is because I don't want to become a target for crime or idiots like nismaratwork. There is a saying that I was told many years ago, the real Superman does not reveal his true identity. Think of what kind of mess Clark Kent would be in if he went around showing off his powers. It takes away the advantage.

Also, who in their right mind would tackle someone with a holstered pistol? If I reach for my wallet... and you made a stupid move like that.. it might be your last. I have a responsibility to keep my guns out of the hands of criminals. The last thing you want to do is get involved in a situation you know nothing about. They teach us the same thing when carrying a pistol.. if a fight breaks out, leave it alone. You don't know who the bad guy is.

 

[JaredJames]

In all honesty, the main reason why I choose to CONCEAL around here is because I don't want to become a target for crime or idiots like nismaratwork. There is a saying that I was told many years ago, the real Superman does not reveal his true identity. Think of what kind of mess Clark Kent would be in if he went around showing off his powers. It takes away the advantage.

Think of what mess Clark Kent would be in if the people around him could picture him without his glasses...

You conceal carry because you don't want to become a target for crime? You do realize that until someone is aware that you are carrying a weapon you are as viable a target as anyone else without one? If I am looking to mug someone, and I see two guys walking down the street, one with a concealed gun and one without, how do I know which is which? If I'm in a public place and there's one guy with a concealed weapon and one with a visible one, shots go off, who am I going to think of first?

Being a target of a crime is not the same as being a victim. Until I know you have a gun, you are just as much a target as the next bloke.

 

[drankin]

It really depends on the community. Here in the suburbs, people are a lot less familiar with the laws and would probably even call the cops if I walked into a Walmart with my pistol (despite our optional open carry laws). When I go further up north though, people don't even give me a second glance. They know the laws. Hell, they probably have numerous firearms of their own.

In all honesty, police officers have always treated me with an elevated amount of respect when they find out I am a licensed carrier. It just comes down to the fact that I don't want to deal with that mess for an hour or two if someone mistakenly calls the cops on me.

The main reason why I choose to CONCEAL around here is because I don't want to become a target for crime or idiots like nismaratwork. There is a saying that I was told many years ago, the real Superman does not reveal his true identity. Think of what kind of mess Clark Kent would be in if he went around showing off his powers. It takes away the advantage.

Also, who in their right mind would tackle someone with a holstered pistol? If I reach for my wallet... and you made a stupid move like that.. it might be your last. I have a responsibility to keep my guns out of the hands of criminals. The last thing you want to do is get involved in a situation you know nothing about. They teach us the same thing when carrying a pistol.. if a fight breaks out, leave it alone. You don't know who the bad guy is.

This is my situation completely. It's really just a local cultural thing. When people see guns in the movies more than in real life on real people they are going to have paranoid ideas as to what your intent is. It's too bad but it's reality.

 

[JaredJames]

This is my situation completely. It's really just a local cultural thing. When people see guns in the movies more than in real life on real people they are going to have paranoid ideas as to what your intent is. It's too bad but it's reality.

So is an excessively high gun murder rate. I'd say the paranoia is well placed.

 

[drankin]

So is an excessively high gun murder rate. I'd say the paranoia is well placed.

It's the guns that you don't see until they are drawn that are murdering people. It happens (probably, for the sake of argument, though I haven't heard of any statistics on this), but is extremely rare that someone is openly carrying in public and commits a crime.

edit: meaning the people who are drawing concealed guns, not the guns themselves.. those sneaky guns :)

 

[redpenguin]

Think of what mess Clark Kent would be in if the people around him could picture him without his glasses...

You conceal carry because you don't want to become a target for crime? You do realize that until someone is aware that you are carrying a weapon you are as viable a target as anyone else without one? If I am looking to mug someone, and I see two guys walking down the street, one with a concealed gun and one without, how do I know which is which? If I'm in a public place and there's one guy with a concealed weapon and one with a visible one, shots go off, who am I going to think of first?

Being a target of a crime is not the same as being a victim. Until I know you have a gun, you are just as much a target as the next bloke.

I don't know... I think its just the opposite. Sure it would stop petty thieves from trying to rob you, but an armed criminal? If I were about to rob or retaliate on a store and saw a guy walk in with a sidearm, he would absolutely be my first target. Why not? Free gun! I don't want to be that guy.

I'd rather beat them with my skill n patience. I trust my shooting, not the deterrence factor of my firearm.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know... I think its just the opposite. Sure it would stop petty thieves from trying to rob you, but an armed criminal? If I were about to rob or retaliate on a store and saw a guy walk in with a sidearm, he would absolutely be my first target. Why not? Free gun! I don't want to be that guy.

I'd rather beat them with my skill n patience. I trust my shooting, not the deterrence factor of my firearm.

If you conceal carry a weapon, it won't deter anyone until you pull it out. I've seen nothing that backs up the notion that the possibility of someone having a weapon concealed about their person lowers crime.

So now you're saying people who open carry are more likely to be attacked in order to acquire their weapon? Regardless, this agrees with nismar in that you would go for a person who has a gun visible - because you know they have a gun.

Now to bring it back to the OP, there is a psychological factor involved in it. If you believe that there isn't you are sadly misinformed. This psychological issue can have many effects, one of which is putting others on guard and making them 'choose their words carefully'. Restricting free speech.

To say that you can simply get a gun and even the ground is ridiculous. That statement says that the only way to have free speech is for everyone to own a firearm. In fact, it goes with the OP.
The fact that a person may feel they need a gun in order to be equal to someone else and to say what they feel, makes it clear that guns do affect free speech.

"I don't feel safe speaking freely when he has a gun, I'll go get one to even the playing field." - suddenly guns are an important factor in freedom of speech.

 

[mugaliens]

Here in the US, the First supports the Second, while the Second defends the first.

I'm sorry if you don't believe that, but our framers themselves wrote numerous attestments to this fact.

I could post supporting documentation written by our United States Congress, but I already have. It keeps being deleted.

PM me if you are further interested.

 

[redpenguin]

I wouldn't be so quick to categorize me in with nismar. I fully support everyones right to carry openly or concealed, as long as they are within the bounds of their laws. I just think it is a bit more subjective of a perspective than you are making it out to be. I don't carry for deterrence, I carry it for life or death situations. I carry it for killing (in self-defense of coarse). Simple as that.

Police officers with guns are supposed to be a huge deterrence in America, and I'm sure they are to a large extent. But if you ask them what one of their biggest fears are, I guarantee you, someone trying to go for their gun will come up more than once. It happens to. And I'm not arguing it either way... I'm just saying, it can make you a target in extreme cases. To suggest otherwise is just non-sense.

Going to the range, up north, or to a competition is one thing for me. But I personally don't feel comfortable having an open carry in certain situations either.

EDIT: To clarify.. reasons are based a lot more on personal preference, perceived advantage, and my community norms.

 

[DanP]

EDIT: To clarify.. reasons are based a lot more on personal preference, perceived advantage, and my community norms.

This hit the nail in the head.

 

[JaredJames]

This hit the nail in the head.

I don't think anyone here has denied that.

As per my previous post, it's an individual thing.

However, if there is a group of people who are affected by those carrying guns, to the extent they aren't able to freely speak, then it is infringing on freedom of speech. Just not for the masses.

It becomes a trade off between allowing people to have guns and allowing free speech. You allow everyone to carry a gun, at the cost of a few peoples free speech (even if it is only down to their own perceptions).

 

[DanP]

However, if there is a group of people who are affected by those carrying guns, to the extent they aren't able to freely speak, then it is infringing on freedom of speech. Just not for the masses.

Slippery slope.

Lets get a individual suffering from social anxiety. He will feel threatened by a lot of social situations. Does that mean that the whole society is infringing his right to free speech ?

Another example. A man has some unconventional ideas. He chooses not to expose them, because they don't conform to the norms of his group, and he fears exclusion. Is this infringement of free speech ?

YOu want a hot chick, but she beleives in god. You choose not to tell you are an atheist, so it doesn't ruin your chances to get together with her. Is she infringing your free speech ?

Perceived fear IMO does not infringe on any of your rights. *YOU* choose to restrain yourself from free speech. To restrain from expressing your right, after weighting in the advantages and disadvantages of opening your mouth. This is what we all do in fact in social situations. A cost / benefit of action analysis.

 

[nismaratwork]

Here in the US, the First supports the Second, while the Second defends the first.

I'm sorry if you don't believe that, but our framers themselves wrote numerous attestments to this fact.

I could post supporting documentation written by our United States Congress, but I already have. It keeps being deleted.

PM me if you are further interested.

Oh thank god... someone else who's willing to say that these are two amendments which are NOT "vs", and don't need to be set in such a fashion. This isn't a question that is peculiar to the US constitution, which makes HAVING both legal rights clear... the debate is how each should be expressed, but not AGAINST each other.

 

[nismaratwork]

I wouldn't be so quick to categorize me in with nismar. I fully support everyones right to carry openly or concealed, as long as they are within the bounds of their laws. I just think it is a bit more subjective of a perspective than you are making it out to be. I don't carry for deterrence, I carry it for life or death situations. I carry it for killing (in self-defense of coarse). Simple as that.

We have the right to bear arms... let's be honest, "open vs. concealed" at the time of the framing was meaningless: you went armed, and it was OBVIOUS. Given that I agree with your assessment of an openly displayed weapon making you the FIRST target (not attracting crime, just neutralize greatest threat first), I'd rather have the advantage of an equally serviceable weapon (and draw-time is hardly an issue) than be the guy who never sees it coming.

Police officers with guns are supposed to be a huge deterrence in America, and I'm sure they are to a large extent. But if you ask them what one of their biggest fears are, I guarantee you, someone trying to go for their gun will come up more than once. It happens to.

True, but with my hip rig, or shoulder (cross-draw) rig I get all the protection and good luck to the person who wants to grab it out of those holsters. I give them around the same odds as a person who tries to grab a sword by the blade...

And I'm not arguing it either way... I'm just saying, it can make you a target in extreme cases. To suggest otherwise is just non-sense.

Then why, EVER carry unconcealed?

Going to the range, up north, or to a competition is one thing for me. But I personally don't feel comfortable having an open carry in certain situations either.

EDIT: To clarify.. reasons are based a lot more on personal preference, perceived advantage, and my community norms.

I should add... when I talk about open carry, I do NOT mean at a show, or range... and even "up north", you tend to see more in the rifle class, and shotguns, than people toting pistols. Fewer people, more angry wildlife, and besides, HD is often the issue, not SD out of home.

 

[nismaratwork]

Slippery slope.

Lets get a individual suffering from social anxiety. He will feel threatened by a lot of social situations. Does that mean that the whole society is infringing his right to free speech ?

Another example. A man has some unconventional ideas. He chooses not to expose them, because they don't conform to the norms of his group, and he fears exclusion. Is this infringement of free speech ?

YOu want a hot chick, but she beleives in god. You choose not to tell you are an atheist, so it doesn't ruin your chances to get together with her. Is she infringing your free speech ?

Perceived fear IMO does not infringe on any of your rights. *YOU* choose to restrain yourself from free speech. To restrain from expressing your right, after weighting in the advantages and disadvantages of opening your mouth. This is what we all do in fact in social situations. A cost / benefit of action analysis.

Of all you've said, only the second COULD be based in a realistic fear of being shot, or otherwise killed. Again, I see someone with a gun, I don't ASSUME anything: I know they have a gun, and that's it unless they're a cop or I know them. I'm not saying I'll club them like a baby seal just in case, but I'll be aware, and if something happens he's my primary target. I don't know anyone with an ounce of SD, police, or military training who would change that threat assessment without added variables.

 

[JaredJames]

Oh thank god... someone else who's willing to say that these are two amendments which are NOT "vs", and don't need to be set in such a fashion. This isn't a question that is peculiar to the US constitution, which makes HAVING both legal rights clear... the debate is how each should be expressed, but not AGAINST each other.

I think the thread title is misleading.

This isn't about guns vs free speech, it's about whether or not you can have free speech with an intimidating person.

Any intimidation can impede the free speech of an individual. The right to own a gun doesn't harm free speech, but the act of visibly displaying one can.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think the thread title is misleading.

This isn't about guns vs free speech, it's about whether or not you can have free speech with an intimidating person.

Any intimidation can impede the free speech of an individual. The right to own a gun doesn't harm free speech, but the act of visibly displaying one can.

Why, I agree completely, and loudly complained about just that from my first post on. You've done so, and others have in their own way (mug for instance) pointed out that these are two amendments to the same constitution, not warring principles.

edit: re your last statement, I don't know if it impedes free speech, but the act of displaying a gun for no reason (a police officer in the US must in uniform, compare to FBI, and other agencies) other than to do it because you can... is purely stupid. If you're with a bunch of pals, and you love your guns... go to a show, go hunt, head to the range: in short, be somewhere that using your gun isn't a matter of killing someone who is trying to kill you. Anything less shows a lack of maturity, and has the potential to escalate normal confrontations needlessly.

redpenguin: If you're willing to talk to cops every time some random person calls them rather than confront you, then carry strapped to your forehead for all I care. I see people carrying openly as evidence of immaturity in gun ownership, and a tactical advantage for me in a bad situation.

 

[DanP]

Of all you've said, only the second COULD be based in a realistic fear of being shot, or otherwise killed. Again, I see someone with a gun, I don't ASSUME anything: I know they have a gun, and that's it unless they're a cop or I know them. I'm not saying I'll club them like a baby seal just in case, but I'll be aware, and if something happens he's my primary target. I don't know anyone with an ounce of SD, police, or military training who would change that threat assessment without added variables.

It has nothing to do with being shot actually. Just some generic example to illustrate that SELF RESTRAIN of the free speech is based on cost benefit analysis in society.

I can ensure you that not weapons are themain reasons ppl do not speak their mind freely in this world. There are others much more powerful constrains in society, conformity, obedience, compliance and so on.

I didnt seen too many ppl choosing to exercise "free speech" then it could cost their job. For some , losing their job in this economy may be worst than taking a bullet :P (tongue in cheek)

The point is , is a choice NOT to exercise the right, not a infringement.

 

[nismaratwork]

It has nothing to do with being shot actually. Just some generic example to illustrate that SELF RESTRAIN of the free speech is based on cost benefit analysis in society.

I can ensure you that not weapons are themain reasons ppl do not speak their mind freely in this world. There are others much more powerful constrains in society, conformity, obedience, compliance and so on.

I didnt seen too many ppl choosing to exercise "free speech" then it could cost their job. For some , losing their job in this economy may be worst than taking a bullet :P (tongue in cheek)

The point is , is a choice NOT to exercise the right, not a infringement.

I agree, which is why my argument doesn't touch on free speech... I'm just saying how I react when I see someone openly armed, or if I identify that someone is carrying concealed! Hell, if someone has a mean look, his fifth scotch and boxer's knuckles, I'm not going to pick a fight either... I note THOSE details as well. I'm just saying that a gun is more effective than fists, or a knife, and the deployment time is minimal. This means that reaction time is even shorter, and that means keeping your... stuff... in line.

I'm saying that someone is a fool to carry openly if they don't have to, or if it isn't a specific social signal. Gun ownership isn't about strapping them to your body until you can't move, it's about being able to target shoot, hunt, and in the extreme, kill other human beings if they try to harm you. I see nothing about that which requires or asks for public display when that very display is strategically disadvantageous, and tactically meaningless -> minimal.

 

[JaredJames]

It has nothing to do with being shot actually. Just some generic example to illustrate that SELF RESTRAIN of the free speech is based on cost benefit analysis in society.

The first is a medical / psychological issue, and you can argue the person doesn't have a free choice in the matter.

The middle is tricky one which could go either way depending on the specifics of the case.

The last is a case of deception. You chose to act in a deceptive manner and lie to this girl. By doing so you put yourself in that situation and removed the option to speak freely yourself. She has done nothing.

The point is , is a choice NOT to exercise the right, not a infringement.

Well you can argue that if intimidation is present (whether deliberate by the person or perceived by the other member) there isn't a free choice in the matter and you're weighing up the risks of speaking freely - something you shouldn't have to do (or at least you should never be presented with a situation where you are concerned about whether or not you can speak freely).

Basically, you haven't made the choice not to speak freely on the basis of you simply not wanting to. Instead the decision is made on the basis of a possible threat to you.

The only way you could defend the 'intimidator' is if there was nothing about them that could be construed as a threat and the other person is simply creating it from nothing. Note, a gun in a holster can be intimidating to people (and so can a 6ft6 body builder for that matter) and can justify a person feeling threatened.
In a case where it is only about physical attributes, I'd be far more inclined to go with the way the person acts and presents themselves.

There's no argument here, intimidation can impede your rights. It can prevent you from exercising them.

Now in the case of a weapon such as a knife / gun, people can find them intimidating.

(Note I'm not discussing just guns anymore.)

 

[nismaratwork]

The first is a medical / psychological issue, and you can argue the person doesn't have a free choice in the matter.

The middle is tricky one which could go either way depending on the specifics of the case.

The last is a case of deception. You chose to act in a deceptive manner and lie to this girl. By doing so you put yourself in that situation and removed the option to speak freely yourself. She has done nothing.


Well you can argue that if intimidation is present (whether deliberate by the person or perceived by the other member) there isn't a free choice in the matter and you're weighing up the risks of speaking freely - something you shouldn't have to do (or at least you should never be presented with a situation where you are concerned about whether or not you can speak freely).

Basically, you haven't made the choice not to speak freely on the basis of you simply not wanting to. Instead the decision is made on the basis of a possible threat to you.

There's no argument here, intimidation can impede your rights. It can prevent you from exercising them.

Now in the case of a weapon such as a knife / gun, people can find them intimidating.

(Note I'm not discussing just guns anymore.)

Good point: I have the legal ability to carry a blade of less than 6 inches in a proper sheathe on my person, openly. I see no upside to this:


If you get into a heated verbal exchange in your local mini-mart, and someone observing this is concerned that you are much larger than the guy you're arguing with and calls the police:
-The police get a call from dispatch: verbal altercation, followed by a description.
If you're openly carrying a knife:
-That same call, but now it WILL include that one man has a knife. The police will now take a greater degree of caution with you, although in most places you won't be held at gunpoint.
-Same call... but with a concealed weapon that is not recognized.:
See the first dispatch call.
-Same call, but you have a gun in an openly displayed holster:
That info WILL be in the dispatch if the caller mentions it, and you better hope that the holstered nature of the weapon is adequately communicated. Even then, you may well be held at gunpoint until your certs can be confirmed.


So... even if you remove someone like me noting you, or the idea of using the weapon IN the argument (as a means of intentional intimidation), just letting everyone know that you're armed is enough to put you at higher risk of being approached by people who don't know you or your intent/state of mind.

If you DO use that weapon, or even if a reasonable case can be made that you tried to brandish it in the course of an argument, you'd just better hope that you're on video NOT doing that... I'd hate to rely on eyewitness testimony.

So... again... WHY? Even without the issue of free speech, shouldn't we first question WHY someone needs to pack heat unconcealed?

The only reason I can think of is someone really fat with an absurd gun and a tight shirt or coat... and you know what, maybe you should work on that weight problem that's killing you instead of criminals who probably WON'T. If someone else has a better reason, I'm listening.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree with you nismar.

To me, having it concealed has many advantages over having it out in the open.

The only reason I can see for openly carrying is a display of force. In which case there is an intimidation factor you are presenting to people.

 

[DanP]

The first is a medical / psychological issue, and you can argue the person doesn't have a free choice in the matter.

The middle is tricky one which could go either way depending on the specifics of the case.

The last is a case of deception. You chose to act in a deceptive manner and lie to this girl. By doing so you put yourself in that situation and removed the option to speak freely yourself. She has done nothing.Well you can argue that if intimidation is present (whether deliberate by the person or perceived by the other member) there isn't a free choice in the matter and you're weighing up the risks of speaking freely - something you shouldn't have to do (or at least you should never be presented with a situation where you are concerned about whether or not you can speak freely).

Basically, you haven't made the choice not to speak freely on the basis of you simply not wanting to. Instead the decision is made on the basis of a possible threat to you.

The only way you could defend the 'intimidator' is if there was nothing about them that could be construed as a threat and the other person is simply creating it from nothing. Note, a gun in a holster can be intimidating to people (and so can a 6ft6 body builder for that matter) and can justify a person feeling threatened.
In a case where it is only about physical attributes, I'd be far more inclined to go with the way the person acts and presents themselves.

There's no argument here, intimidation can impede your rights. It can prevent you from exercising them.

Now in the case of a weapon such as a knife / gun, people can find them intimidating.

(Note I'm not discussing just guns anymore.)

Perceived intimidation doesn't infringe your rights. You still have them, unaltered, but **YOU** simply decide not to exercise them because of fear, or because of a cost / benefit analysis.

Simply put, it's your problem if you choose to say you are republican and you would rather boost yourself as a liberal because someone in the same room is a carrying.

The only entity who can infringe your rights under a threat of life, sequestration in a prison, deportation, and so on, is the entity guaranteeing those rights, the State, or when a 3rd part does a criminal act upon you,
by which it prevents you directly from exercising the right. i.e kidnapping, murder, and so on (or at least actively trying to )

The last is a case of deception. You chose to act in a deceptive manner and lie to this girl. By doing so you put yourself in that situation and removed the option to speak freely yourself. She has done nothing.

The person who is carrying also done nothing to you. But you choose to lie and act in a deceptive manner because you are afraid of his reactions. Pretty much the same thing with the girl scenario, the difference being in one case you fear rejection, in another case you fear an eventual hostile reaction.

Basically, you haven't made the choice not to speak freely on the basis of you simply not wanting to. Instead the decision is made on the basis of a possible threat to you.

It doesn't matter. It's the self assumed decision of not exercising the right following a cost / benefit analysis.

Well you can argue that if intimidation is present (whether deliberate by the person or perceived by the other member) there isn't a free choice

You don't ever have a completely free choice. Like I pointed out earlier, conformity can be much more efficient than a gun from preventing you to speak your mind freely.

 

[FlexGunship]

So the gun puts her on equal ground as the bloke, but she doesn't become intimidating... right.

Gun can be used to issue threats. Absolutely. That doesn't mean their existence constitutes a threat.

 

[FlexGunship]

I think the thread title is misleading.

This isn't about guns vs free speech, it's about whether or not you can have free speech with an intimidating person.

Any intimidation can impede the free speech of an individual. The right to own a gun doesn't harm free speech, but the act of visibly displaying one can.

Meh, okay. I can agree with this. I would argue that displaying a gun, alone, isn't very intimidating unless you're scared of guns. In which case, displaying anything that anyone is scared of has the same effect.

Do large poisonous spiders threaten free speech? What if its in a terrarium at the time? Personally, I'd feel more threatened by a guy with a box of bees than a guy carrying a revolver. Seriously.

 

[DanP]

Do large poisonous spiders threaten free speech? What if its in a terrarium at the time? Personally, I'd feel more threatened by a guy with a box of bees than a guy carrying a revolver. Seriously.

Are you kidding me ? Poisonous spiders are luft. See the real threat on free speech below. IT does really infringe !

Whose turn is to be IT ?

 

[FlexGunship]

Are you kidding me ? Poisonous spiders are luft. See the real threat on free speech below. IT does really infringe !

Whose turn is to be IT ?

I see your "IT" and raise you a box of bees!

I actually cringed looking at this picture. <shudder> I'm leaving this thread until this isn't on the final-page anymore.

 

[DanP]

I see your "IT" and raise you a box of bees!

I actually cringed looking at this picture. <shudder> I'm leaving this thread until this isn't on the final-page anymore.

Im speechless. Muhahhaa.

 

[JaredJames]

Let's cut the crap.

Intimidation can prevent you exercising your rights.

Some people find guns intimidating.

It's really not that difficult. What you find intimidating isn't necessarily what I will and so it is a subjective issue by nature.

 

[DanP]

Let's cut the crap.

Intimidation can prevent you exercising your rights.

Some people find guns intimidating.

It's really not that difficult. What you find intimidating isn't necessarily what I will and so it is a subjective issue by nature.

I agree, let's cut the crap. Being born ball-less can prevent you from exercising your rights too. Not because you don't have them, not because they are not guaranteed to you by the State, but because you don't have what it takes, and since kindergarten you was unable to speak for yourself and preferred avoidant behaviors.

So , does now biology infringe you right to free speech ?

Who is IT now ?

 

[JaredJames]

Meh, okay. I can agree with this. I would argue that displaying a gun, alone, isn't very intimidating unless you're scared of guns. In which case, displaying anything that anyone is scared of has the same effect.

I agree with you, but then I'm not scared of guns, it's the people with them that worry me. For myself, when I see someone with a gun I don't think about the reason they have it. My first thought is "that person is willing to take a life" and that is what concerns me. I think about the fact there is a person in front of me that has the means and attitude to kill me - that is a worrying thing for me. (Even if they only use the gun for 'fun', I go straight to the worst case given the nature of the device.)

If I have to speak to them I'm very much aware of this fact. It's a psychological issue and not something you can just ignore. It's a very real threat I feel.

 

[DanP]

I agree with you, but then I'm not scared of guns, it's the people with them that worry me. For myself, when I see someone with a gun I don't think about the reason they have it. My first thought is "that person is willing to take a life" and that is what concerns me.

I think you are scared of guns. Because you seem to have this reaction only when you see a gun. If a man is carrying concealed, you seem to completely ignore the possibility that that man can carry and be very willing to use it. The reasing factor of the behavior doesn't seem to be the willingness of the man who use a weapon, but the sight of the weapon itself. The fear drives you into an emotional judgment over the person who is carrying.

 

[nismaratwork]

Gun can be used to issue threats. Absolutely. That doesn't mean their existence constitutes a threat.

Right, but they're a potential threat, and that's enough to make someone stand out in a crowd. A gun is only ever 2 things: a potential threat, and shooting.

 

[JaredJames]

I think you are scared of guns. Because you seem to have this reaction only when you see a gun. If a man is carrying concealed, you seem to completely ignore the possibility that that man can carry and be very willing to use it. The reasing factor of the behavior doesn't seem to be the willingness of the man who use a weapon, but the sight of the weapon itself. The fear drives you into an emotional judgment over the person who is carrying.

I'm scared of a person who carries a weapon.

In my day to day business, I'm not thinking about what people may or may not have concealed. I am however, given a stark reminder when a person with a gun walks in - bringing the issue up.

The trail of thought doesn't exist to create the reaction until something brings it up.

Yes, fear does drive my reaction, but it isn't of the item itself but to do with the person.

 

[nismaratwork]

Meh, okay. I can agree with this. I would argue that displaying a gun, alone, isn't very intimidating unless you're scared of guns. In which case, displaying anything that anyone is scared of has the same effect.

Do large poisonous spiders threaten free speech? What if its in a terrarium at the time? Personally, I'd feel more threatened by a guy with a box of bees than a guy carrying a revolver. Seriously.

I'm not afraid of guns, but I'm wary of people, and a gun gives a person the potential to act quickly and lethally. I'm not afraid that cars are going to swerve into my lane... I'm worried that a person DRIVING a car is going to swerve into my lane.

If someone is displaying a gun in an everyday setting, I question the reasoning on every level: to me that makes me wary of the PERSON... the gun is just an indicator and a potentially lethal accessory.

I'll ask for a third time: can anyone think of a good reason, other than to project force or authority (outside of a show, range, or hunt) to carry openly rather than concealed, and back that up with data? If not, then you're carrying openly just because you CAN, and that's a bad reason to do ANYTHING with a gun in my view. Once again, wary of the person, and the gun is at the crux of it. Jared, being opposed to guns, would rather not interact with that person... I'd just make sure that I could get a fast draw.

Is EITHER a desirable reaction?

edit: If someone say, tries to rob you with bees, or a snake, or dog... it's assault with a lethal weapon. You're not the first person to consider improvised weapons: remember, it's a crime just to use a REPLICA of a gun in the commission of a felony. Your examples are all crimes to assault someone with, and crimes to transport in an unsafe manner... and to own without a license in some states (venomous reptiles, lethal spiders, etc).

So yeah, if I'm walking down the street and some guy is an apiarist's suit with a bee-box?... I'm out of there, and on the phone with 911! If I'm in a rural community, or the suburbs, I'd assume that person kept bees and be unconcerned. Context. There are limited contexts for the display of a gun:

Authority by implied right to use force.
Naked Threat.
Using the gun for its intended purpose.
Necessity (The body or gun are not compatible with concealment)

I'm yet to hear any good arguments from necessity.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think you are scared of guns. Because you seem to have this reaction only when you see a gun. If a man is carrying concealed, you seem to completely ignore the possibility that that man can carry and be very willing to use it. The reasing factor of the behavior doesn't seem to be the willingness of the man who use a weapon, but the sight of the weapon itself. The fear drives you into an emotional judgment over the person who is carrying.

I'm not BAD at noting when someone is carrying concealed, but if it's the right gun on the right person... you're just unaware without training that only LEO's and a few others need or get. Naturally you can't be afraid of something which is hidden from you, which is good... a gun is a tool to defend, not a means to project force or threat in this society... unless you're a LEO.

 

[DanP]

which is good... a gun is a tool to defend, not a means to project force or threat in this society... unless you're a LEO.

Are you saying that LEOs projects threats into the society ?

 

[JaredJames]

Are you saying that LEOs projects threats into the society ?

I think he was going for "project force" on that one.

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you saying that LEOs projects threats into the society ?

Wow... everything I said, the reasonable questions I've asked, and you hang on this? No Dan, they'd be projecting authority: a gun is part of their uniform, like a bobby's baton (tonfa?) and it tells us from an early age that these are a select group who are authorized to use force when needed, including lethal force. Don't bother trying to make this somehow about me being "anti-cop"... I'm not. I'd add, LEOs OTHER than uniformed police or raiding team for other agencies carry openly! Even in the latter case, usually the pistol is concealed, and a sub-machine gun, assault rifle, or shotgun is used instead.

So... do you have an answer to my main question, or is that non-scrap of minutiae it?

Q:

I'll ask for a third time: can anyone think of a good reason, other than to project force or authority (outside of a show, range, or hunt) to carry openly rather than concealed, and back that up with data? If not, then you're carrying openly just because you CAN, and that's a bad reason to do ANYTHING with a gun in my view. Once again, wary of the person, and the gun is at the crux of it. Jared, being opposed to guns, would rather not interact with that person... I'd just make sure that I could get a fast draw.

Now waiting for 'A:'...

 

[nismaratwork]

I think he was going for "project force" on that one.

Thanks for not assuming the worst.

 

[JaredJames]

Thanks for not assuming the worst.

What I assumed and the conclusion I decided to stick with may not be the same thing.

 

[FlexGunship]

Now waiting for 'A:'...

Fine, since no one else can handle it; I'll take it on!

Open carrying indicates a desire to be upfront with the equipment you carry. Someone who carries openly is not ashamed of their firearm-carrying status. Carry the exact same analog to large axes.

Furthermore, if you are in line at a bank and a potential robber sees the gun (i.e. not concealed) he would probably be less likely to assume his bank robbery is a "sure thing."

Is that an extreme case? Sure. But if there's one potential idea, there could be many more.

Additionally, open carry raises a lot fewer questions than concealed carry.I just saw a guy with a handgun in a grocery store maybe two weeks ago. Openly carrying it on his hip with his jacket hung over it slightly. Now, if I had spotted it be luck because it was concealed, I would probably be more likely to question the situation.

Try assuming everyone is carrying a handgun for a day and imagine that everyone knows you're carrying a handgun. It's not that bad.

 

[JaredJames]

Furthermore, if you are in line at a bank and a potential robber sees the gun (i.e. not concealed) he would probably be less likely to assume his bank robbery is a "sure thing."

Is that an extreme case? Sure. But if there's one potential idea, there could be many more.

Could an opportunist try to get the gun and use it for the robbery? Would it simply mean you're the first to be shot / targeted in order to remove the threat you pose to the robbery? Perhaps they'd just wait until you leave?

Some are more extreme than others, but they're all certainly in the potential idea area.

I'd be interested in seeing a statistic showing crime against people openly carrying vs concealed carry vs no firearm.

Knowing someone has a firearm has a psychological effect on people. In my case it concerns me. If concealed and I don't know, the threat might be the same but the psychological effect (the stress even) isn't there and so doesn't stop me speaking freely.

 

[FlexGunship]

Could an opportunist try to get the gun and use it for the robbery? Would it simply mean you're the first to be shot / targeted in order to remove the threat you pose to the robbery? Perhaps they'd just wait until you leave?

Some are more extreme than others, but they're all certainly in the potential idea area.

I'd be interested in seeing a statistic showing crime against people openly carrying vs concealed carry vs no firearm.

I'd be interested in that statistic as well. However, in general, I think most robberies are carried out in the quest for "easy money." The idea that, instead of money, you could end up murdering someone or end up dead yourself seems like a strong counterpoint to the "easy money" idea. The bank heists of movie-lore are super rare if they even exist at all.

Knowing someone has a firearm has a psychological effect on people. In my case it concerns me. If concealed and I don't know, the threat might be the same but the psychological effect (the stress even) isn't there and so doesn't stop me speaking freely.

Fair enough. I guess if you haven't been around guns much they might seem a little pseudo-mystical and scary. I mean, I have a totally irrational fear of bees! Who am I to talk about what you should and shouldn't be scared of.

However, in line with the OP's question, I think it's a choice if you want to be intimidated out of your right to free speech by the sight of a gun or not.