Are Guns Silencing Free Speech?

[drankin]

Or is that an aside equating clowns and guns in this excuse for an argument?

Yes, were you taking this personal? :)

Basically it's making the premise that intimidation, which is a subjective emotion, is a basis to determine infringement.

Cops are armed and sometimes they intimidate me. Are they infringing on my rights?

 

[nismaratwork]

Jeez, you act like a stalker :P Weird

OMG, I totally know! It took like, 5 minutes, but during that time I was absolutely obsessed. Anyway, that's all behind me now, and we have this quality thread as a reminder of my foolish beliefs.

Drankin: I'm genuinely annoyed to see this debate return to 'Go' for every new thread. Is there anyone here who's positions aren't known by rote at this point, while the person who started a thread comparing two separate constitutional rights is nowhere to be found. Oh, and I'm not engaged in this argument: it's absurd. We have laws regarding brandishing and irresponsible displays of a firearm; using a gun to actively intimidate is against the law. Pointing a weapon or reasonable replica of one at someone is assault with a deadly weapon, sans battery, although that would be a really angry judge to go for that.

In short, this is a non-debate; this is settled law in all 50 states and rights which coexist... there IS NO 'vs.'

Oh, and if you're intimidated by police officers... good. They're usually a wrong move of yours away from shooting you, and I don't mean that as a knock on cops; better they go home from their perspective. So, be a little intimidated and keep your hands in clear view, no sudden moves, yadda yadda.

Then again, are you afraid the cop will shoot you... or arrest you?

 

[Loren Booda]

OK, this is the second vague/controversial thread by Loren Booda, (remember "right to be harmonius" ?!). Anyone get the feeling that you're performing for someone's entertainment, when that person seems to have no further interest in their threads?

Just a thought before you rehash this for the hundredth time in a slightly different setting. Is it worth the argument because someone presented you with a philosophical question of balance between major rights granted by the first two amendments to the uS constitution? I didn't realize we could start threads like: "Abortion vs. Elder Driving Rights", then walk away and leave the thing to go in a dozen directions at once...

The vagueness you mention was cleared up after the first post on human rights. If you feel this thread is going nowhere, why not consider going elsewhere or rather, participate? That's what a democracy is about, eh?

I often sit back and read, because many of the posters are too fast or voluminous for my dexterity to respond. Must threads not be controversial? Two in a row? In that case most at PF would qualify, perhaps your own.

Your suggestion is well taken in general, that I should let others start threads and me try responding to them instead.

 

[1MileCrash]

No offense, but that just may be the most bizarre, ridiculous thing regarding politics I have ever heard.

 

[drankin]

Drankin: I'm genuinely annoyed to see this debate return to 'Go' for every new thread.

Luckily, this forum isn't about you. No matter how much you post. :)

 

[JaredJames]

Why would having a gun be intimidation?

I think everyone here would agree that a 6ft6 Arnie wannabe can be intimidating.

You say in a previous post that giving a petite woman a gun makes her as strong as such a bloke (puts her on an equal footing).

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

If your own mentality allows you to see everyone on an equal footing and react to everyone as such, then I'd be inclined to say you're a bit cocky and sure of yourself (your abilities).
If you are able to ignore the fact someone has a gun, I'd say you are sure of the fact they either can't or won't use it against you. Let's face it, if you carry a gun around with you (regardless of reason) you are willing to kill a person. When I'm speaking to you and I see you have a gun, I'm very much aware of this fact. If you feel threatened by me at any time (or get annoyed and use that as a cover story even) then you are prepared (and able) to kill me.

There is a difference between speaking to someone, who you feel you could match in a fight and speaking to someone you are aware could pull a weapon and end things at any moment - leaving you with no way to resist.

 

[drankin]

The truth is, it makes many yuppy types nervous to see someone, just like them, carrying a gun openly. It's perfectly legal to do in my state but I don't for this reason. It's dumb IMO but we have to accommodate the delicate minds of others. It certainly does not infringe on anothers right to speak. It might tend to make them more polite though.

 

[nismaratwork]

Luckily, this forum isn't about you. No matter how much you post. :)

...Nor how much you make pointless comments like the one above. By the way, when you edit my post to make a point out of context, please note that you've edited it; I was responding to you, not making the global point you're mocking. I'd add... you're GLAD to see that this debate fails to evolve, even with same cast each time?... to me it just seems like a way to continue arguments from previously locked threads.

Booda: Yeah, participating in the threads you start might not be a bad thing. As for controversial, what thread did I start that was controversial... and I don't mean one that BECAME so after people brought their own agendas to it. Throwing out "guns vs. free speech" on this forum is like throwing raw meat to lions; messy, predictable, and it only serves to keep the beasts alive.

I'm curious, why DID you set up two rights that are part of the same legal construct as a "versus" issue? On its face, it's a balance issue in the USA, being the first and second amendments respectively.

edit:

The vagueness you mention was cleared up after the first post on human rights. If you feel this thread is going nowhere, why not consider going elsewhere or rather, participate? That's what a democracy is about, eh?

I often sit back and read, because many of the posters are too fast or voluminous for my dexterity to respond. Must threads not be controversial? Two in a row? In that case most at PF would qualify, perhaps your own.

Your suggestion is well taken in general, that I should let others start threads and me try responding to them instead.

You can obviously start as many threads as you want, but there's a pattern of the ones that stray into philosophical and metaphysical ground being locked. Given that when you start a thread, it's out of your hands, a little stewardship or a nudge away from the brink can be helpful. Especially when it comes to politics and philosophy, guns and free speech... I mean... you have a list of people who WILL turn up, and you can even tell in what order, and why. If you want it to be more, obviously you have to exert some effort to make it more, even if some pe

 

[JaredJames]

It certainly does not infringe on anothers right to speak. It might tend to make them more polite though.

So it doesn't infringe on your right, but it would incline you to speak less freely than you would if they didn't have the gun? I'm interested in the logic behind that one.

The moment a person changes how they speak to someone on the basis of them having a gun in their possession, that person is no longer speaking freely (or less so than if the gun wasn't present).

Nismar, the legal viewpoint doesn't necessarily answer the question, in the same way that legal and moral don't always meet. Just because the law says something (such as guns do/do not intimidate) that doesn't make it true. That is simply the legal stance on the matter. It's an individual perspective.

The fact that I find a weapon intimidating and something that would cause me to speak less freely, and there are others who say the same thing is enough to say that on some level, even if only for a minority, that guns can impact on free speech. So it isn't simply a black and white yes/no answer.

 

[nismaratwork]

The truth is, it makes many yuppy types nervous to see someone, just like them, carrying a gun openly. It's perfectly legal to do in my state but I don't for this reason. It's dumb IMO but we have to accommodate the delicate minds of others. It certainly does not infringe on anothers right to speak. It might tend to make them more polite though.

re bolded: So, on one hand, it doesn't stop people from speaking, but on the other an implied threat (which is NOT responsible gun ownership) keeps might scare them into being polite? That's the kind of winning logic that has you setting up this yuppy strawman; it's not yuppies watching you drankin, it's other people with guns, and police. You should think about where you carry your gun, because while it may seem trivial to you, any police officer is going to take it VERY personally first, and ask questions later.

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

 

[JaredJames]

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

Now that is something I agree with.

To believe a person visibly displaying a firearm is going to receive the same treatment as someone who doesn't is plain ridiculous.

 

[drankin]

So it doesn't infringe on your right, but it would incline you to speak less freely than you would if they didn't have the gun? I'm interested in the logic behind that one.

The moment a person changes how they speak to someone on the basis of them having a gun in their possession, that person is no longer speaking freely (or less so than if the gun wasn't present).

If freely means less polite, you have a point. But only in part. If we all assumed everyone was armed then everyone would probably be more civil to each other.

The basis on someone changing the way the speak is totally subjective. Your perception of someone with a gun is not the same perception I have. You may be intimidated by "the gun" because you aren't familiar with people being armed. Is that their fault? Is your ability to speak freely really being compromised because you have a fixation on his/her weapon? Or is your ability to talk freely only based on your perception of personal safety? Good discussion, BTW.

 

[nismaratwork]

Now that is something I agree with.

To believe a person visibly displaying a firearm is going to receive the same treatment as someone who doesn't is plain ridiculous.

Hey, if people want to try and carry an AR-15 to their next public event, something tells me there will be a few extra REAL cross-hairs on them. Personally, I'd feel a little twitchy knowing that I'm a "go" away from being dead before I hear a shot.

On the other hand, when an irresponsible gun owner (as in, criminally irresponsible) is shot by a responsible gun owner or police officer, I feel for the cop or the shooter. (also, an angel gets its wings) It's not really a debatable point that you're safer carrying concealed than in the open: you're an obvious target for any other shooter in the latter case. If you carry concealed, you have the EXACT same defensive capacity, AND you don't stand out to everyone else with a gun, cops, and "robbers".

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You should think about where you carry your gun, because while it may seem trivial to you, any police officer is going to take it VERY personally first, and ask questions later.

No one said it's trivial, however open carry is accepted in many communities. Police officers will treat you with respect as long as you are acting responsibly in a situation.

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

It's fallacious that you think a person open carrying is more likely to commit a crime, mainly because criminals who commit crimes with a weapon do not open carry that weapon (it's much more likely to be tucked in their waist band or in a pocket). Do you have any real reason to be suspicious of a person open carrying a gun on their hip, when it's the people you don't know have a gun which are more likely the problem?

 

[drankin]

re bolded: So, on one hand, it doesn't stop people from speaking, but on the other an implied threat (which is NOT responsible gun ownership) keeps might scare them into being polite? That's the kind of winning logic that has you setting up this yuppy strawman; it's not yuppies watching you drankin, it's other people with guns, and police. You should think about where you carry your gun, because while it may seem trivial to you, any police officer is going to take it VERY personally first, and ask questions later.

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

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

 

[JaredJames]

If freely means less polite, you have a point. But only in part. If we all assumed everyone was armed then everyone would probably be more civil to each other.

If I'm not speaking as I normally would (censoring for whatever reason), I'm not speaking freely.

The basis on someone changing the way the speak is totally subjective. Your perception of someone with a gun is not the same perception I have. You may be intimidated by "the gun" because you aren't familiar with people being armed. Is that their fault? Is your ability to speak freely really being compromised because you have a fixation on his/her weapon? Or is your ability to talk freely only based on your perception of personal safety? Good discussion, BTW.

It doesn't matter who's side the intimidation comes from (deliberately by gun wielding person or simply all in my head), if it's there and I'm censoring / editing my speech then it's no longer free.

 

[JaredJames]

It's fallacious that you think a person open carrying is more likely to commit a crime, mainly because criminals who commit crimes with a weapon do not open carry that weapon (it's much more likely to be tucked in their waist band or in a pocket). Do you have any real reason to be suspicious of a person open carrying a gun on their hip, when it's the people you don't know have a gun which are more likely the problem?

I don't believe he said anything about more likely to commit a crime.

But he is correct in that if shooting breaks out, who are the cops likely to look at? The guy openly carrying a gun or some random member of public who isn't?

 

[nismaratwork]

If freely means less polite, you have a point. But only in part. If we all assumed everyone was armed then everyone would probably be more civil to each other.

The basis on someone changing the way the speak is totally subjective. Your perception of someone with a gun is not the same perception I have. You may be intimidated by "the gun" because you aren't familiar with people being armed. Is that their fault? Is your ability to speak freely really being compromised because you have a fixation on his/her weapon? Or is your ability to talk freely only based on your perception of personal safety? Good discussion, BTW.

In one "breath" you imply that the threat of death will induce a polite demeanor, and also state that carrying openly does NOT infringe on the right to speak. It's really not about the larger concepts, it's what you actually TYPED that logically contradicts itself. Fortunately I don't believe that polite fear is the normal reaction to a gun; if someone is worried that you're going to start shooting, they're going to get out of there and call the police. You will then be held at gunpoint by people who know you have a gun, but not why, or if it's legal.

Given that, I agree: carrying openly doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, because they have the ability to call authorities at any time and even (or tip) the playing field. You might also consider that in an age of cameras EVERYWHERE, carrying openly means that you may have a photo of that online... forever. Hopefully all future employers, LEO's, and ladies share your views!

So, go ahead, announce to the world that you're armed... it's not so much an issue of "right" as "Bright"! Maybe a better question is: are you safer carrying concealed, and if so... why not carry concealed instead of openly? If that's how someone feels the need to make a point, it's pathetic.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't believe he said anything about more likely to commit a crime.

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?

 

[nismaratwork]

No one said it's trivial, however open carry is accepted in many communities. Police officers will treat you with respect as long as you are acting responsibly in a situation.



It's fallacious that you think a person open carrying is more likely to commit a crime, mainly because criminals who commit crimes with a weapon do not open carry that weapon (it's much more likely to be tucked in their waist band or in a pocket). Do you have any real reason to be suspicious of a person open carrying a gun on their hip, when it's the people you don't know have a gun which are more likely the problem?

Yeah, it's a fallacy, but you're still often going to be on the receiving end of it. Police will be VERY polite... once they assure themselves as to your identity and legality of your gun. Until then, if you think they're NOT ready to shoot you... ask a cop, sometimes they like to err on the side of 'going home'.

Again, unless you carry openly to make a point (which is blending your 1st and 2nd amendments, and that's fine), and accept the risks associated with it... well... why not just carry concealed?

Oh, and I'm suspicious of people who have hips... so that's most of them... guns on them just raises my awareness. I don't know that I want to live in a world where people don't know enough to be wary of lethal ranged weapons in the hands of someone they don't know. I'm wary of that possibility, which is why I carry a lethal ranged weapon of my own, but CONCEALED. Now, I have the same protection, but I don't stand out like a fool who thinks he needs to be quick on the draw in a civilian setting.

Unless you ARE the type to note behaviour and body language, and little details such as, "Oh, that gentleman is openly armed," then really the shooter is going to be the first to know that violence is afoot. Your reactions to that situations should be to take cover BEFORE returning fire... again, not a "quick-draw" situation.

I guess for the gun owner, the question is: why carry openly?

 

[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.