Starbucks Sticks to Its Guns

[Michael]

I can't think of any good reason why a private citizen would want to openly carry a firearm. While the display of a firearm might dissuade the casual less than committed criminal, to a fully determined criminal it's like wearing a target as a shirt.

Outside of hunting and war, people and carry weapons in order to attack others or to protect themselves from the previous group. A weapon of any kind lets the potential attacker or victim know that the consequences will be serious. The idea that carrying a weapon makes you more of a target than one who doesn't sounds pretty far out to me.

[dragontigerpalm]

I can't think of any good reason why a private citizen would want to openly carry a firearm. While the display of a firearm might dissuade the casual less than committed criminal, to a fully determined criminal it's like wearing a target as a shirt.

Outside of hunting and war, people and carry weapons in order to attack others or to protect themselves from the previous group. A weapon of any kind lets the potential attacker or victim know that the consequences will be serious. The idea that carrying a weapon makes you more of a target than one who doesn't sounds pretty far out to me.

Carrying a weapon doesn't make one more of a target but carrying one openly does. When an armed criminal enters a bank or store with the intent of robbing it his weapon is already drawn. Who will he point the gun at first unless he takes a hostage- the armed guard with a visible firearm or the others present who might or might not have a concealed weapon?

[Michael]

I get what you're saying and in your scenario that could happen if the attackers overwhelmingly out-number the victims, but it's an argument about an aspect of crime that is probably a minuscule portion of the danger that would prompt one to carry in the first place. Those who take their gun use seriously and do so responsibly would probably understand that it is precisely against such a well-armed, malicious, and very small minority group of criminals that we must protect ourselves through the deterrent of increasing the numbers of those who carry open or concealed so that the would-be attacker, even in this scenario, would consider himself at a disadvantage and not have the confidence of the wolf scaring a bunch of sheep.

Just consider your scenario if the would-be bank robbers entered a bank and failed to immediately subdue everyone inside who was willing to open fire against them. Any fire fight would probably last long enough to prevent the robbers from succeeding simply because of the chaos it would create. The possession of firearms, open or concealed, by just two or three customers in the bank, creates so many variables and problems for would-be robbers as to create a significant deterrent. This holds true for any potential crime scene whether a bar, coffee shop, grocery store, or post office.

[dragontigerpalm]

Two weeks ago I heard the first hand account of an armed attack during a money drop. Both the guard who told of the incident and his partner were openly carrying and were shot before they could draw their weapons. They were the only two shot and his partner died in his arms. Of course this is anecdotal and I surely don't know any relevant statistics but I accept this as telltale. FWIW I support the right to carry and I am a licensed and registered armed guard who prefers concealed carry.

[Steve James]

Having a gun doesn't make one strong. In fact it is a demonstration of weakness. It doesn't even mean that a person is capable of using it. In the old west, there was only one "gun fight" recorded; most of the rest were ambushes or robberies. It is true that in a world where most people are unarmed, they make easier targets that those who are armed.

Anyway, I think there are too many myths floating around, such as the idea that it was safer in the old west or at anytime people carried arms openly, as if they were carrying them to prevent gun fights or robberies. Actually, those times are famous for the number of outlaws, not lack of robberies or overall personal safety. None of the outlaws was known for face to face attacks --except daylight bank robberies, etc-- and there is absolutely no reason to believe that outlaws would/will behave any differently today. Actually, more often that not, the bad guys have even the armed good guys outgunned.

Anywho, I'm not saying that owning or carrying is bad, only that it isn't a deterrent to a robber if everyone else is carrying too. Carrying doesn't even begin to make anyone a bad ass. it can make a person feel like a bad ass, though: i.e., that sense of security that comes from having the ability to take a life.

[Michael]

Two weeks ago I heard the first hand account of an armed attack during a money drop. Both the guard who told of the incident and his partner were openly carrying and were shot before they could draw their weapons. They were the only two shot and his partner died in his arms. Of course this is anecdotal and I surely don't know any relevant statistics but I accept this as telltale. FWIW I support the right to carry and I am a licensed and registered armed guard who prefers concealed carry.

I hear you. Sounds like another ATM courier robbery about a year ago.

My rationale is based on the belief that the vast majority of people are good and not interested in robbing others and that only a tiny minority will use violence and weapons in order to steal. I believe that if 5 or 10% of normal people had decent training and carried responsibly, it would be the greatest deterrent possible to violent crime, and something that no police force you would want to live with could equal in a free society.

[Michael]

Having a gun doesn't make one strong. In fact it is a demonstration of weakness.

Wearing a coat in cold weather is surely a sign of weakness, as well as carrying water into the dessert, or an umbrella on a rainy day, or a lifevest on a class VI rapids, or a helmet on a motorcycle, or a cup in a sparring match. Sunglasses are weak. Belts and suspenders are doubly weak. Hiking boots are weak, we should all go naked. We're all so weak.

There is some seriously defeatist thinking in this thread.

[Chris Fleming]

"Having a gun doesn't make one strong. In fact it is a demonstration of weakness."

Nope. The gun is the great equalizer. An 80lbs woman becomes more than a match against a big thug. That's what I'm talking about, not pseudo philosophical concepts. Anything more is just lame sophistry.

[klonk]

Carrying a weapon doesn't make one more of a target but carrying one openly does. When an armed criminal enters a bank or store with the intent of robbing it his weapon is already drawn. Who will he point the gun at first unless he takes a hostage- the armed guard with a visible firearm or the others present who might or might not have a concealed weapon?

This is a very good point. A very good instructor I had said, if you are in some fucked up place where you can only carry openly, keep it behind your hip so if you are facing the goblins they cannot see it. And make it a point to face possible goblins. Nothing succeeds like surprise.

Guy lived through several wars and picked up some decorations on the way, discharged as no longer fit by the Marines--as a colonel. Imagine going up and getting your ass shot off when you could be at a desk at the Pentagon.

Passed away some time ago. Everyone misses him, because he was lousy at poker.

[Ian]

umbrellas and most clothes are, in fact, weaksauce.

I believe real men dress like this

[gzregorz]

Uh...One, Washington didn't have an assault weapon.

Two, he was the government.

There are quite a lot of incidents in America like the ones I've posted below. Intelligence from research and analysis proves carrying a handgun saves lives. If you intelligently look at *both* sides, you can see which one really has logic and which one keeps shouting the old west blood in the streets theme. You can see which one has been proven true and the other side's "blood in the streets" emotional response has been disproved time and time again. You can research to find out that CCW holders are *THE* most law abiding group in the U.S., even above LEOs. So, in the end, intelligently looking at the issue, one can only conclude that your argument above regarding staying at home and smoking weed is misplaced logic.

No NLP please. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Make it plain man.

[Steve James]

Carrying a gun to show that you are strong is a sign of weakness. Yep. Even if you're carrying because they're bears around. Go figure. It ain't really that hard to admit weakness and the desire for strength or equality. If you need a weapon to do that, and need to advertise it, I would not consider it an indication of strength. Anyway, if it's about 80lb women defending themselves, then wokay.

[Darthwing Teorist]

Actually, more often that not, the bad guys have even the armed good guys outgunned.

Exactly. Criminals always try to put the advantage of (fire)power at their side. They will just get bigger guns. Doesn't anyone listen to 50 Cents? Haven't you heard the way he's saying that he will use an automatic rifle against people who use pistols?

If a determined criminal thinks there is a threat, he will kill it with no hesitation.

[Darthwing Teorist]

Passed away some time ago. Everyone misses him, because he was lousy at poker.

Quite the epithet.

[Ian]

PENIS GOURDS ARE NOT FOR PUSSIES.