Should Guns Trump Free Speech?

[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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

I have to say, I never saw the concept of carrying concealed as a sing of shame, just good sense. The element of surprise is valuable. If someone is about to commit federal crimes by robbing a bank with a weapon, they'll probably be amped on adrenaline (at LEAST) and would assume I'm a cop. I HOPE they'd just club me, and not shoot me as their way of getting attention. Honestly, I don't know if these stats exist... I'm guessing that carrying openly in a bank is relatively rare, and bank robberies are (per capita) relatively rare.

A gun probably deter as well, but one thing it is CERTAIN to do: a gun makes any conflict potentially lethal. A gun escalates any conflict past every other point (even maiming) and takes it to death when it's taken out. It's true that simply displaying a gun isn't the same as brandishing it or drawing it, but it IS the next best thing.

By the way, I'm familiar with what it's like when everyone has guns, and I think you are too: it's called war, and it's not safe or that good. If you're in a culture where guns are part of survival, then you don't need a pistol, you need a good rifle, and this is all moot.

You should check out the dueling history of the Musketeers (the real ones, not 'Le Trois'... they're not a bad lesson in how you might expect, in such a universally armed society, to see elite groups emerge. Japanese history under the Tokugawa Shogunate is a similar lesson in how universally and openly armed groups interacted... and I might add, the end result was conquest by a new type of arm: guns, during the Meiji Revolution.

In fact, if you just armed everyone and they carried openly, your skill with firearms would become central to your survival, while the jobs for anyone who can kill by stealthy means would just skyrocket. You can't beat human nature...

Anyway, if I spotted someone with a gun (non-LEO) concealed or out, I'm taking note of that person and my own armament. I wouldn't become alarmed, just aware, unless their behaviour and appearance warranted further alarm.

 

[FlexGunship]

By the way, I'm familiar with what it's like when everyone has guns, and I think you are too: it's called war, and it's not safe or that good. If you're in a culture where guns are part of survival, then you don't need a pistol, you need a good rifle, and this is all moot.

Okay, this is a disgusting debasement of the conversation and you know it. A society in which every person is capable of using deadly force to defend his or her life is fundamentally distinct from war.

War requires a socio-economic engine for sustaining conflict.

The simple presence of guns is no such engine.

Not every situation in which everyone is eating a hot dog is an eating contest. And not every situation where everyone has a gun is a war!

Look up the statistics on gun-show shootings.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.



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.

Guns aren't mystical, sure, but they represent the most commonly seen article of a new age of devastating weapons: (rockets, bombs, missiles). A sword has changed its form in some ways, but from the Kilij to the Rapier, you cut, you slash, and there's the factor of human exhaustion. Modern weaponry, including guns, represents the ability of someone who is minimally skilled to harm a large number in seconds, in a way that is far more difficult to achieve otherwise.

People have had the same kind of horror when bows began to emerge, then mounted horsemen (mongols), English Longbows, and then the crossbow!... oh the crossbow, which indeed was the hot-button issue of its day. Here was a weapon that, in the hands of a peasant, could slay a knight in full armor from a distance. You bet your sweet bippy it was seen as threatening, and after attempted bans failed, regulation set it. It began with recurved bows, then English Longbows, but the Crossbow really finished the job. Guns have more in common with a crossbow than a bomb, in terms of social impact.

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, this is a disgusting debasement of the conversation and you know it. A society in which every person is capable of using deadly force to defend his or her life is fundamentally distinct from war.

War requires a socio-economic engine for sustaining conflict.

The simple presence of guns is no such engine.

No it isn't, but in the modern world that we DO live in, what country is so armed and enjoys anything we'd call peace?

Honestly, you've never been able to gauge the mood of a country, or even a region, by who is carrying what openly? I see two police, one with a shotgun, and the other with an assault rifle guarding a bank, I've learned a LOT about where I am. If everyone has pistols on their hips... well... I think I'd believe I'd gone to the fictional old west. There has never been a time where we had these kind of modern weapons that are feasible to CARRY while you do something unrelated to toting that gun.

 

[nismaratwork]

<SNIP>Not every situation in which everyone is eating a hot dog is an eating contest. And not every situation where everyone has a gun is a war!

Look up the statistics on gun-show shootings.

To respond to your latter point, a gun show is NOT "carrying openly"... it's a GUN SHOW. I'm not worried if I see someone in full plate armor and sword either... if I'm taking my niece to a Renaissance fair.

We're talking about EVERYBODY carrying openly, not a concentration of people (mostly) interested in a hobby.