Guns and sporting events...

[LibLabUK]

What with a really big international football tournament being played (Euro 2004), I was just wondering....

Can CCW holders take their weapons to sporting events?

[amber dog democrat]

1. There was a movie called TOP SECRET

and the first segment had a sport called Skeet Surfing... where you went out on a surf board and blasted clay pigeons with shot guns on the way in.

Ever try it ?

[LibLabUK]

2. If everybody had a surfboard and a gun rack too-oooh

Seen the film... not sure how it relates to the question though.

[amber dog democrat]

3. hmmmm

well maybe it doesn't much..
But Skeet Surfing combines sport with firearms.

I;d say just mix it up with the hooligans after the match if you want a little post game fun. Let me know what hospital you are in afterwards.

[Wickerman]

36. now THAT would responsible gun handling eom

[amber dog democrat]

4. I checked out the CCW requirements with our local Dpt of Pub Saftey

Getting one of those permits is more trouble than its worth.

I wonder how many people here in Texas acutally do carry firearms.

I bet its in the low thousands. This is more responsibility than the average person needs to have.

Me? I never go anywhere without a Swiss Army Knife.

[slackmaster]

6. If you come to southern California in the next couple of weeks

Don't try to bring your SAK into the Del Mar fair.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

5. Generally speaking the answer is no

Major sports venues like American football and baseball stadiums have rules prohibiting weapons of all types. That seems reasonable to me because most state CCW laws specifically prohibit carrying a firearm anywhere alcohol is served.

No such restrictions exist at most smaller events like neighborhood Little Leage games.

[LibLabUK]

7. Okay..

Thanks..

I was just wondering.. because I seem to recall that there have been a few incidents of 'Basketball hooliganism' in the past few years.

[slackmaster]

9. That's against the rules too

Fighting is not allowed in the USA, and anyone who committed an assault with a weapon at a sports event surely violated the venue's rules and state laws.

[iverglas]

11. hmm

Major sports venues like American football and baseball stadiums have rules prohibiting weapons of all types. That seems reasonable to me because most state CCW laws specifically prohibit carrying a firearm anywhere alcohol is served.

How come we haven't been deluged with tales of licensed premises in Ohio being robbed??

Surely since *all* of them can be counted on to have no armed patrons, they'd be the obvious targets ... and would have been even before that concealed carry licence thing came into effect.

[RoeBear]

12. In Michigan at least...

...the bar owners can be armed.

[slackmaster]

14. Same in California

Owners and employees can carry if the owner approves, but not patrons.

[Wonk]

15. and then there's Arizona

A Round of Shots

If booze causes problems, and guns solve problems, then having guns in bars should solve more problems than it creates, right? :+

on edit: Well, that was close, but the bill failed by a vote of 15-13

State Senate votes 15-13 to keep guns out of bars

Robbie Sherwood
The Arizona Republic
May. 26, 2004 12:00 AM

State senators on Tuesday killed a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry guns in bars, nightclubs and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Despite intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, Senate Bill 1210 failed its final vote 15-13.

more...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0526barguns260.html
Google cache of the article
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:JmK8SC9t1LUJ:www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0526barguns260.html+Arizona+Bill+1210&hl=en

[slackmaster]

17. Sounds like sanity prevailed

This is a clear case of the NRA going over the top IMO. Only owners and employees of bars and restaurants should be armed. The fact that ANYONE is drinking raises the probability of a violent altercation.

[DoNotRefill]

23. I disagree.

I think people who are NOT drinking should be able to carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

What we need is a simple standard like with drunk drivers. If your BAC is .08, you are legally considered too impared to handle a vehicle. I'd support a much lower BAC level for CCW, say, .02.

Folks who are not drinking shouldn't be unable to carry, ESPECIALLY in places where there's a greater chance of a violent altercation.

[iverglas]

32. and your analogy breaks down

What we need is a simple standard like with drunk drivers. If your BAC is .08, you are legally considered too impared to handle a vehicle. I'd support a much lower BAC level for CCW, say, .02.

We know the potential population of drunk drivers: people driving cars.

You open your eyes, you look around you, and you see them. People don't drive concealed cars. We don't have Klingon technology yet.

We do NOT know the potential population of drunk concealed firearm-carriers. By definition, we do NOT know who is carrying a concealed firearm.

We are therefore left with purely post facto enforcement mechanisms: IF someone is carrying a concealed firearm and is drunk AND uses the firearm in some way that brings it to public attention (or does something else that results in it being possible to search him/her), THEN and ONLY THEN, and virtually by definition TOO LATE, may s/he be charged with the offence of drunk concealed firearms carrying.

That's kinda like closing one's eyes and waiting for the drunk driver to hit somebody before investigating.

In the case of a car, we can observe how someone is driving, since we can see him/her driving and therefore know that s/he is driving, and we can determine whether there are at least grounds for investigating whether s/he is driving drunk.

We simply have no way of observing how some is concealed firearms-carrying, since we can't see him/her carrying a concealed firearm. We would therefore never have grounds for investigating whether s/he is concealed firearms-carrying drunk.

If cars had cloaking devices -- so that people could indeed engage in concealed car-driving -- we might decide to fit them all up with on-board breathalyzers that had to be blown into in order to start the car, and perhaps every 30 minutes thereafter. I doubt that we'd just put all the licensed drivers (and unlicensed drivers too, of course) in the world on the honour system, and rely on them never to have a few drinks, engage the cloaking device and head out on the highway.

See? That is yr real analogy.

Why anyone wants to put everybody licensed to carry concealed firearms (not to mention those not licensed) on the honour system and rely on them never to have a few drinks, shove a gun in their pants and head out to the mall is beyond me.

But that is exactly what licensing people to carry concealed firearms amounts to.

And that is exactly what making firearms, specifically handguns, readily available to everybody else amounts to, too.

Here's yr gun. Y'all be good, now!

[Paladin]

42. Well Said

N/T

[slackmaster]

35. It's the equivalent of not allowing open containers in moving vehicles

On one level I agree that there should be some kind of BAC content standard as there is for driving, but if you want to pursue a cars/guns analogy AFAIK in every state it is now illegal for an open container of any alcoholic beverage to be present in a private car even if the driver hasn't touched a drop. There are exceptions - At least in California it's legal for passengers in a motorhome to drink as long as they aren't in the cockpit area, and you can drink if you are in the back seat of a taxi or limousine.

Licensed carry of a concealed weapon in public is legally a privilege as is licensed operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. Some restrictions that don't pass a critical test for logic may be in the best interests of the public. I'm wishy-washy on this one but I don't consider it important enough to worry about.

Folks who are not drinking shouldn't be unable to carry, ESPECIALLY in places where there's a greater chance of a violent altercation.

I think people who aren't driving should be able to drink while in a car. But that's simply not what the law allows. I try to avoid places where I perceive any chance of a violent altercation if I have any reasonable choice.

[iverglas]

16. and then there was my actual point

... which was that business establishments' refusal of entry to PATRONS / CUSTOMERS / VISITORS who are carrying firearms is what we have been repeatedly told here recently is the cause of said businesses being robbed.

Not owners. Not managers. Not employees.

One of the tales we were treated to was of how a robbery of a convenience store was foiled by a gun-toting employee. So plainly bars are not the only places where the management and staff can reasonably be expected to be armed.

So I could always ask my question again.

If it's the gun toting of the customers that wards off potential robbers, and the gunlessness of the customers that attracts them, how come bars -- whose customers are prohibited from carrying firearms the same way customers of "posted" businesses in Ohio are prohibited from carrying firearms, but perhaps even more stringently since the prohibition if an instruction by the legislature and not by a private properly owner -- are not being robbed willy-nilly?

[RoeBear]

19. Answer your own question..

...I know you can.

[iverglas]

20. okey dokey

The question:

If it's the gun toting of the customers that wards off potential robbers, and the gunlessness of the customers that attracts them, how come bars -- whose customers are prohibited from carrying firearms the same way customers of "posted" businesses in Ohio are prohibited from carrying firearms, but perhaps even more stringently since the prohibition if an instruction by the legislature and not by a private properly owner -- are not being robbed willy-nilly?

The answer: one swallow does not a summer make.

And three, or a dozen, carefully selected anecdotes do not proof of anything make.

The problem with the question is the premise: IF it's the gun toting of the customers that wards off potential robbers, and the gunlessness of the customers that attracts them, ... .

IF it were those things that ward off / attract would-be robbers, THEN bars would be getting robbed all the time.

Unless there is some other reason for bars not getting robbed all the time -- some factor that distinguishes bars from the places that got robbed in the anecdotes.

Nobody's telling me what such factor might be -- and nope, if that's the answer you were looking for, I haven't been able to conjure one up for myself.

I therefore conclude, unless and until some decent evidence to the contrary is presented (i.e. some factor that distinguishes bars from other establishments where customers are prohibited from toting guns), that it is NOT the gun toting of the customers that wards off potential robbers, and the gunlessness of the customers that attracts them, in any business establishment.

Okay with you?

[iverglas]

21. and now the short summary for the attention challenged.

1. Establishments where customers are prohibited
from carrying firearms have a disproportionate
tendency to be robbed.

2. Bars are establishments where customers are prohibited
from carrying firearms.

3. Bars do not have a disproportionate tendency
to be robbed.

(#3 is an observation based on long experience;
#1 is an observation based on carefully selected anecdotes covering a few weeks in time.)


**Therefore the premise "establishments where customers are prohibited from carrying firearms have a disproportionate tendency to be robbed" is false.**

Q.E.D.


For those who want to check the math, consider:

1. Animals that bark are able to learn to speak English.
2. Dogs are animals that bark.
3. Dogs have never been successfully taught to speak English.

Therefore the premise "animals that bark are able to learn to speak English" is false. Q.E.D.

[Columbia]

24. How about...

Bars do not get robbed often regardless of whether firearms are prohibited within or not

Therefore, your own premise is false.

Why would a criminal want to rob a place that is full of people (who may be able to ID or cause trouble for them) and little cash anyway?

[iverglas]

28. well damme

"Why would a criminal want to rob a place that is full of people (who may be able to ID or cause trouble for them) and little cash anyway?"

I do believe I was saying just that very thing about the notion of robbing ANY retail business ... regardless of whether there was some slim chance that a customer or customers was carrying a concealed firearm.

Do you suppose this might have been my point?

Happy to quote myself again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=65297#65492

If I were rational, I wouldn't be a criminal.

As I understand it, criminals hold up places of business in the US all the time whose owners/staff are, and where there is certainly a very good chance they will be, armed. At least so I gather from reading Guns in the News. A rational criminal wouldn't be taking the chance of getting killed by a cashier with a firearm.

A rational criminal wouldn't be holding up a business when it was full of customers, armed or not.

Somehow I doubt that a would-be robber who is willing to go up against a proprietor who is much more likely to be armed than any customer, and/or to try to rob a business when there are customers milling around, armed or not, is going to put the possibility of customers carrying concealed firearms into that balance and suddenly find the enterprise too risky, when his/her careful assessment of the situation had shown it to be a perfectly reasonable proposition until that factor intervened.

A bar is not necessarily any more jam-packed with customers, or short of cash, than a convenience store.


"Bars do not get robbed often regardless of whether firearms are prohibited within or not
Therefore, your own premise is false."

Uh huh. And we have wide experience with situations in which firearms are NOT permitted within, in order to construct this comparison, do we? Huh. I thought not. I'm not seeing any proof of the falsity of MY premise.

[alwynsw]

26. Which is it to be?

I refer you to post #2 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=66016#66022

Notice a trend?

Uh, no. I notice 4 anecdotes. Maybe you can help me out by providing some actual statistically valid stats.

Why are your anecdotes and personal experience valid basis for discussion whislt those of others are not?

[Columbia]

27. Tis called hypocrisy

Here is another case:

Quite seriously, as long as rich people were the ones getting concealed firearms permits (which really is not the case where *I* am at), I wouldn't be too likely to encounter a legally concealed firearm-toter, so I wouldn't really care.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=47843#48058

In fact, although I have an income way up in the rarefied percentiles of the population, I live in a postal code that, at least until the last census, had one of the lowest average incomes in Canada.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=47843#48091

[iverglas]

30. now that's just fascinating

hypocrisy
the assumption or postulation of moral standards
to which one's own behaviour does not conform

Now, you have presented two things I have said, apparently in an effort to present evidence of mine own hypocrisy. Hard to say what you're getting at, since you seem to think that cutting and pasting an argument makes. Well, just as one swallow does not a summer ... cutting and pasting does not an argument.

Let me see whether I can guess what you think your point might be.

First, I said I didn't give a shit - "wouldn't really care" - whether rich people were getting concealed firearms permits, because rich people weren't likely to be anywhere that they would be causing harm I cared about, essentially.

Note that I also said that this is NOT THE CASE where I'm at. That is, rich people DO NOT get concealed firearms permits. Where I'm at, NOBODY gets concealed firearms permits unless it is necessary for their employment for them to carry firearms, and possibly in some other extremely narrow exceptional cases. And very obviously, rich people are NOT the ones who need to carry firearms for the purposes of their employment. Rich people are not working as security guards. Duh.

Second, I said that I have a high income. I do. This doesn't mean that I am a millionnaire. It means that as incomes break down, the vast majority of people earn under a certain level, and I earn above that level. I am "high-income", not "rich". You seem to have been confused about this.


So you appear to be trying to make the point that:

- it's okay with iverglas if rich people have permits to carry concealed firearms and poor people don't;
- iverglas is a rich person;
therefore iverglas is a hypocrite.

Well, too bad, so sad, it doesn't work. You know why. (I mean, I hope you do, I really do.)

(a) iverglas cannot get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, because in Canada she would be denied that permit. Unquestionably, absolutely certainly, no two ways about it. I do not have anything approaching the reasons needed in order to be granted such a permit.

(b) iverglas does not want a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and you know that perfectly well.

(c) iverglas does not belong to the class of people whom she (c'mon, admit it: facetiously) agreed to exclude from the standard applied to everyone else.


Is there any basis for your statement that I have assumed or postulated moral standards to which my own behaviour does not conform?

Nope. Not a shred of a scintilla of such evidence. None whatsoever. My own behaviour is entirely in accordance with the standards I postulate.

I believe that no one should be granted permits to carry concealed firearms in public places (unless necessary in connection with his/her employment or possibly in certain other very limited exceptional circumstances having absolutely nothing to do with his/her income or wealth), and I do not have or wish to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public places.

My own behaviour conforms 100% perfectly with the standards I postulate.

Your allegation of "hypocrisy" is 100% perfectly false. Whether you have the wit to realize that is not mine to know, nor within my ability to change if you don't.

Have fun though. Throw that mud, and some of it, false and despicable as it is, is bound to stick. That seems to be an acceptable practice in public discourse in some quarters, and there's nothing I can do about it, is there?

Just don't ever think that people with eyes to see can't see the mud dripping from your own face when you're done.

[Columbia]

33. Rationalize all you want

Thanks!

[iverglas]

34. and dissemble all you like

Also duck and shuffle, and maunder, and blather ... and misrepresent.

Be my guest!

[iverglas]

29. well I just dunno

Why are your anecdotes and personal experience valid basis for discussion whislt those of others are not?

Perhaps if you could cite my reliance on such "anecdotes and personal experience", thus providing some evidentiary basis for your question and demonstrating that it isn't just a bunch of words strung together in an effort to discredit me/my argument without actually presenting any evidence that I am not worthy of credit or that my argument is not worthy of consideration, I could answer it.

I am *positive* that you are not referring to the following, in the post you cited:

And my cats make it rain. Hey, the other day, they came in for dinner, and it started raining right after. In fact, it happened three times last month. I notice a distinct trend.

since I would find it absolutely beyond belief that you actually believed that I was offering this anecdote/reasoning as proof that my cats make it rain. You are not so credulous as to think this, and I am not so credulous as to think you think it.

[alwynsw]

43. Read your post that was referenced to find the answer. n/t

[RoeBear]

25. It's been my personal observation that..

...not many bars get robbed, but i've heard of many patrons getting robbed in the parking lot.

[Wickerman]

38. analogy alert, analogy alert!!!

you should know better than to use an analogy in the Gungeon. Having worked on a test that used that particular item I can tell you that the average USAmerican can't tell you what that means - and those who could are dying off. We no longer have the capability to reason through a nice analogy.

Hell, I can swallow a lot of beer in one summer, that Iverglas gal is dead right.

[iverglas]

39. hmm

http://imc.gsm.com/integrated/bcs/mental/page14.html

Abstract thinking is a high level function that is affected by delirium, dementia and psychosis.

Proverbs

1. Ask the patient to tell you the meaning of one or two simple proverbs: "A stitch in time saves nine." "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." "A rolling stone gathers no moss."

2. Note whether the patient's responses are concrete, abstract, or irrelevant.

Or ... one swallow does not a summer make ...

Similarities

1. Ask the patient to tell you how two things are similar: "Cat and mouse" "A tree and a rose bush" "A church and a theater"

2. Note whether the patient's responses are concrete, abstract, or irrelevant.

An answer such as "a church and a theater both have doors" is a correct but concrete response. "A church and a theater are both places where people gather" is an abstract response. What do you make of this famous similarity question, "Why is a raven like a writing desk?"

Okay, I asked google that last one: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_266.html


You're not saying that guns are the same as toxic waste, or that firearm owners are the same as drunk drivers, or Satan, are you now??


(edited to add the "one swallow" comment ... for those unable to identify the similarity in question ...)

;P

(and edited again to re-fix the formatting)

[Wickerman]

40. Proverbs have been considered an excellent way to measure

pre-morbid IQ and to localize brain injury. One has to be careful, though, because cultural differences can really wreck havoc on your reliabilities. Less and less are being used in Standardized tests, and clinicians are abandoning them in their screenings for similar reasons. There are distinct geographical differences on how the average client responds to various proverbs. Your choice analogy didn't fair well in ethnic sampling when last validated. I guess some folks don't know a swallow does not always equal a gulp - or a summer. :shrug:

[iverglas]

41. very true

And age would seem to be a particularly relevant factor.

I've mused to myself in the past about how long it will be before most people have no clue what "put the cart before the horse" means. ;)

I have to admit that it didn't occur to me that large numbers of people wouldn't know what "one swallow does not a summer make".

I was attacked by swallows a couple of years ago. In the trailer camp where my dad was spending the summer. They were nesting on top of a hydro pole along the camp's internal road. (Yikes, talk about cultural incomprehension: what's a hydro pole?? Normally, it's the big tall thing that electricity - hydro - wires are strung between, of course, but in this case it was a 4-foot high 4x4 with an electrical outlet on it and I just can't think of what else to call it. Oh: hydro post, of course.) They flew at me repeatedly. I thought I'd share the joy with the co-vivant, who is about 9 inches taller than me and I figured would be their primary target if we were walking together. But it must have been their sleepy time, because they ignored us. Maybe they just pick on middling-sized women. Maybe, given how Bunge the budgie did the same thing to me, birds just hate me.

[DoNotRefill]

22. Because of the large crowds...

they have armed police officers on-site throughout the event. There are still guns there.

[iverglas]

31. you talkin to me?

My question was:

How come we haven't been deluged with tales of licensed premises in Ohio being robbed??

Your answer is:

Because of the large crowds...
they have armed police officers on-site throughout the event. There are still guns there.

Hmm. There are many bars that do not have "large crowds" present, and that do not have armed police officers on site, I would think.


Perhaps there was linguistic confusion. "Licensed premises" are where people take their budgerigars to consume alcoholic beverages: "licensed premises" are establishments licensed to serve said beverages. The expression is commonly used in both the UK and Canada, I believe. If this expression is not known to USAmericans, mea culpa.

[OpSomBlood]

8. Florida CCW law states "no guns in sports stadiums or arenas" specifically

n/t

[TX-RAT]

10. I believe most if not all of those stadiums are city or county owned.

City and county properties are mostly CCW free.

[RoeBear]

13. In Michigan at least...

...city and county property are not automatically prohibited.
I think one of the most non-hypocritical things I've ever seen a state legislature do is not include the place where they meet as a no carry zone.

[MrSandman]

18. VA would be interesting...

What with the wording of their preemption law. It would take some research. In WV, it would be up to the sponsoring agency/body.

[Romulus]

37. generally depends on the state

In VA, for instance, you can't carry concealed in an establishment that has a license to serve alcohol, but you can carry openly (with the consent of the property owner).

I am not sure about what happens if the property owner is a local government. VA has statewide preemption that trumps local fiefdoms on the firearms issue, so it's not clear if you could be legally required to leave a publicly-owned facility.

In NC, any place that charges admission is CCW-free by state law.

I know of no such restrictions in PA, which only bars CCW in courthouses, schools, and state parks. Bars and restaurants are CCW-OK in that state, so I guess stadiums may be as well since there is no alcohol-service-establishment ban.