In some states, these signs don’t even mean that a person can’t carry a concealed weapon into the shopping center. In my state, for instance, assuming you are otherwise able to legally carry a gun (meaning you took a class and aren’t a felon), the list of areas where you can’t legally carry a gun is very limited: Federal buildings, courthouses, etc. If a business has a sign posted stating “no guns allowed,” you can still legally carry your weapon in that business. If an employee sees that you’re armed, they can ask you to leave, and you’re trespassing if you refuse, but nothing legally stops you from carrying a gun into the establishment in the first place.
As a disclaimer, I’m not arguing this one way or another. I have a license to carry a concealed handgun, in fact. Just sharing information.
I don’t know the statutes offhand; I’m basing this on what I was taught in my CCW class years ago.
The general idea is that the state sets limited laws on where you can’t carry concealed. Government buildings, etc. These restrictions hold the force of law. For a private property owner, they can certainly say “no guns,” but it has the same legal weight as if they said “no hats.” They can set rules for their property, but those rules don’t magically become law. That’s where trespassing laws come in; if you’re asked to leave, they have the right to ask you to do so.
Some states do have laws in place stating that “no guns” signs are legally binding, but the signs must meet certain legal criteria as far as wording. Surprisingly, I think Texas is one of these states, but I could be wrong.
My state is solidly blue, so it does seem strange to me that the laws are written as they are.
Yeah I’m sure minimum wage clerks are going to totally feel comfortable asking the armed person (someone who believes they need to arm themselves to enter a shopping center) to please leave.
Yeah I’m sure minimum wage clerks are going to totally feel comfortable asking the armed person (someone who believes they need to arm themselves to enter a shopping center) to please leave.
yeah, they probably would. Shooting someone is very fucking illegal.
also most larger establishments are going to have security, and, you can call the police if you wish.
The sign actually would give me an increased sense of security yeah.
Obviously a lunatic out to do a mass shooting would disregard the sign but your average gun wielder might be offended and take their business elsewhere – and statistically that’s the one who’s more likely to shoot me. That’s my logic as a Norwegian who’s lived there for just a year anyway.
and statistically that’s the one who’s more likely to shoot me. That’s my logic as a Norwegian who’s lived there for just a year anyway.
what for though? are you just harassing people in public? I don’t understand why someone would be concerned about someone just having a gun. You probably won’t even see this person, let alone bump into them, let alone get into an altercation with them.
And most of them are sane and reasonable people who understand how de-escalation works.
The question was whether or not a sign saying guns not allowed at a mall would make me feel more safe there. I would see them, I might bump into them, it’s a mall.
The argument that most of them are sane and reasonable doesn’t reassure me much when we’re talking about people with a magic kill button.
Statistically speaking, people that have conceal carry licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the average person, and less likely to shoot a person in general. The people to worry about are the people that carry firearms without having a valid carry license. (This doesn’t apply in the relatively few states that don’t require permits to carry concealed firearms.) Essentially, people that obey one law–getting a permit before they carry a firearm–tend to be likely to obey most laws.
Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun. Any measure to reduce the amount of people in my vicinity carrying guns has my full support. If 1/1000 (number pulled out of my ass obviously) gun owners end up shooing someone, and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.
I actually looked and couldn’t find the murder rate in the population of gun owners with basic googling but the actual number doesn’t matter when it’s being compared to 0.
According to a quick Google search, 3 in 10 American adults say that they currently own a firearm; that’s around 82,000,000 gun owners in the US. Last time I checked, there were around 45,000 annual gun deaths in the US, of which just under 2/3 were suicide. That leaves somewhere around 18,000 deaths that are homicides of some form (which also includes legal self-defense). So it’s far, far less than 1/1000 gun owners that are going to shoot someone (other than intentionally shooting themselves, and IMO that’s a different issue entirely).
But, sure, if in your opinion that only correct number of gun deaths is 0, then yes, removing guns and collectively forgetting how to make them is the only solution. Just like if your opinion is that the only correct number of traffic deaths is zero, then the only reasonable solution is the completely elimination of all means of transportation other than feet.
Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?
Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that?
I absolutely do disagree, yes. If my life or safety is being threatened by someone, then I absolutely have the right to use any level of force necessary to defend myself, up to and including lethal force.
BTW, the way that you state that question is a form of manipulation. It’s a common tactic used in high-pressure sales.
Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.
Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.
Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun.
they’re more likely to have the probability of shooting you in an extremely bad encounter. If you have an encounter that bad with someone, you’re going to get fucked up one way or another, and it’s probably you who caused the problem, since you’d be the common denominator here. Otherwise it’s basically just up to random statistics or not as to whether you get gun violenced.
Statistically, speaking, a person with a gun is more capable of shooting you than someone without a gun. I would be willing to be the number of gun owners that have shot a person is probably less than 0.01%
and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.
also this isn’t accurate since it would mostly matter on who shoots you, rather than a gun owner shooting you. Most of the gun violence in the US is done via illegal or unregistered guns. I.E. not legal license carrying gun owners.
I know the rough per capita numbers per 100,000 people iirc, is about 5-30 varying per state obviously. But states like NYC and cali have some of the lowest, with random buttfuck nowhere land no gun law states having upwards of 30. To be clear, this is a 0.0003% chance at the highest level. Most of which is probably going to be avoided by simply engaging in basic self preservation behaviors. Since most gun violence isn’t just random acts of violence.
Signs telling you not to bring guns into shopping centers.
In some states, these signs don’t even mean that a person can’t carry a concealed weapon into the shopping center. In my state, for instance, assuming you are otherwise able to legally carry a gun (meaning you took a class and aren’t a felon), the list of areas where you can’t legally carry a gun is very limited: Federal buildings, courthouses, etc. If a business has a sign posted stating “no guns allowed,” you can still legally carry your weapon in that business. If an employee sees that you’re armed, they can ask you to leave, and you’re trespassing if you refuse, but nothing legally stops you from carrying a gun into the establishment in the first place.
As a disclaimer, I’m not arguing this one way or another. I have a license to carry a concealed handgun, in fact. Just sharing information.
I’m sure that’s the practicality, but I am skeptical of the legality of a CCW permit trumping the rights of the property owner.
It sounds more like breaking the law and just not getting caught. Do you have any links to CCW permit overriding property owner rights?
I don’t know the statutes offhand; I’m basing this on what I was taught in my CCW class years ago.
The general idea is that the state sets limited laws on where you can’t carry concealed. Government buildings, etc. These restrictions hold the force of law. For a private property owner, they can certainly say “no guns,” but it has the same legal weight as if they said “no hats.” They can set rules for their property, but those rules don’t magically become law. That’s where trespassing laws come in; if you’re asked to leave, they have the right to ask you to do so.
Some states do have laws in place stating that “no guns” signs are legally binding, but the signs must meet certain legal criteria as far as wording. Surprisingly, I think Texas is one of these states, but I could be wrong.
My state is solidly blue, so it does seem strange to me that the laws are written as they are.
Property owner rights do not magically override the 1A.
Property owners are welcome to write scary notices. They are just not legally enforceable.
Yeah I’m sure minimum wage clerks are going to totally feel comfortable asking the armed person (someone who believes they need to arm themselves to enter a shopping center) to please leave.
Most people who have a concealed carry permit are generally law-abiding. I would certainly leave immediately if asked.
yeah, they probably would. Shooting someone is very fucking illegal.
also most larger establishments are going to have security, and, you can call the police if you wish.
Never seen this where I live. Not every state is a complete shit hole thankfully
Does this give you any increased sense of security as a non-american?
The sign actually would give me an increased sense of security yeah.
Obviously a lunatic out to do a mass shooting would disregard the sign but your average gun wielder might be offended and take their business elsewhere – and statistically that’s the one who’s more likely to shoot me. That’s my logic as a Norwegian who’s lived there for just a year anyway.
what for though? are you just harassing people in public? I don’t understand why someone would be concerned about someone just having a gun. You probably won’t even see this person, let alone bump into them, let alone get into an altercation with them.
And most of them are sane and reasonable people who understand how de-escalation works.
The question was whether or not a sign saying guns not allowed at a mall would make me feel more safe there. I would see them, I might bump into them, it’s a mall. The argument that most of them are sane and reasonable doesn’t reassure me much when we’re talking about people with a magic kill button.
Statistically speaking, people that have conceal carry licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the average person, and less likely to shoot a person in general. The people to worry about are the people that carry firearms without having a valid carry license. (This doesn’t apply in the relatively few states that don’t require permits to carry concealed firearms.) Essentially, people that obey one law–getting a permit before they carry a firearm–tend to be likely to obey most laws.
Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun. Any measure to reduce the amount of people in my vicinity carrying guns has my full support. If 1/1000 (number pulled out of my ass obviously) gun owners end up shooing someone, and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.
I actually looked and couldn’t find the murder rate in the population of gun owners with basic googling but the actual number doesn’t matter when it’s being compared to 0.
According to a quick Google search, 3 in 10 American adults say that they currently own a firearm; that’s around 82,000,000 gun owners in the US. Last time I checked, there were around 45,000 annual gun deaths in the US, of which just under 2/3 were suicide. That leaves somewhere around 18,000 deaths that are homicides of some form (which also includes legal self-defense). So it’s far, far less than 1/1000 gun owners that are going to shoot someone (other than intentionally shooting themselves, and IMO that’s a different issue entirely).
But, sure, if in your opinion that only correct number of gun deaths is 0, then yes, removing guns and collectively forgetting how to make them is the only solution. Just like if your opinion is that the only correct number of traffic deaths is zero, then the only reasonable solution is the completely elimination of all means of transportation other than feet.
You’ve done your division twice there, it seems. The ~45000 is the number after you take away the suicides.. So pretty much 1/2000, so I guess I was pretty close.
Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?
I absolutely do disagree, yes. If my life or safety is being threatened by someone, then I absolutely have the right to use any level of force necessary to defend myself, up to and including lethal force.
BTW, the way that you state that question is a form of manipulation. It’s a common tactic used in high-pressure sales.
Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.
Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.
they’re more likely to have the probability of shooting you in an extremely bad encounter. If you have an encounter that bad with someone, you’re going to get fucked up one way or another, and it’s probably you who caused the problem, since you’d be the common denominator here. Otherwise it’s basically just up to random statistics or not as to whether you get gun violenced.
Statistically, speaking, a person with a gun is more capable of shooting you than someone without a gun. I would be willing to be the number of gun owners that have shot a person is probably less than 0.01%
also this isn’t accurate since it would mostly matter on who shoots you, rather than a gun owner shooting you. Most of the gun violence in the US is done via illegal or unregistered guns. I.E. not legal license carrying gun owners.
I know the rough per capita numbers per 100,000 people iirc, is about 5-30 varying per state obviously. But states like NYC and cali have some of the lowest, with random buttfuck nowhere land no gun law states having upwards of 30. To be clear, this is a 0.0003% chance at the highest level. Most of which is probably going to be avoided by simply engaging in basic self preservation behaviors. Since most gun violence isn’t just random acts of violence.
Look are you really trying to argue that the amount of people with guns in my vicinity is irrelevant to my chances of getting shot?
the opposite for me