Armed man enters crowded restaurant!

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Let me clarify, I would not feel unsafe with a person lawfully carrying in my presence. Someone unlawfully carrying, and I knew or suspected it, would make me wary.

 

[DooDoo1402]

I purposely haven't replied to this thread, because I was waiting for responses and opinions from others. I do come to the forums often, but I don't often feel compelled to post.

It doesn't matter whether I am a law enforcement officer or not, or whether I have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. I should have stated that my firearm was concealed while in the restaurant. Personally, if Maryland had a law permitting the carrying of firearms by law abiding people, then I wouldn't mind if it was an open carry policy. At least then I can see who is armed. It would be the people concealing the firearms I would be worried about.

The point of my posting was to bring attention to the firearms debate and to prove that guns and knives are not dangerous. They are just tools used by some dangerous and evil people. I was wondering if you or any of the patrons of the restaurant would have been in fear if they had known there was a gun in the dining area with them, or would they have been in fear of the person it was on?

I was hoping more people would give their opinions on whether they feel safe or threatened by having people carrying firearms around them. Were the people in danger or were they safer because I was carrying a firearm?

What if an ex disgruntled employee had burst into the restaurant and had a firearm? What if someone had tried to commit an armed robbery, while innocent employees and patrons were there? What if some evil crazed lunatic, who feels nobody pays him enough attention and needs to make himself famous, came into the restaurant and started shooting the place up? I can guarantee that person's actions would have been put to an immediate stop!

If more law abiding citizens were permitted to be armed, and carried concealed or open firearms, I guarantee there would be less crime in the country. Criminals and evil people would thing twice before they committed acts.

As Robert Heinlein wrote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.".

In closing, remember that firearms are just a tool. They dont "spontaneously" start firing and kill people. There are enough gun controls laws in place all ready. Law abiding, gun educated people are not reckless nor run wild shooting places up. They make things safer for themselves and you. Don't believe everything the media attempts to cram down your throat. The media is often uneducated and look for ratings just like any other television broadcast.

I think history has shown (ask western towns like Tombstone) that there are lots of people too unstable to carry firearms in public. There is no license or measure for "temper". Some folks, both male and female, have serious anger management issues. Just watch what happens to some folks that see you got served and more attention than them. I am ex-miltary and also a gun(s) owner. But after so many years of witnessing common-sense folks, I don't think firearms should be allowed in public establishments. To me, you were just "drawing" attention on yourself and it is the sheer artificial provoking that will start trouble. My gun's bigger than your gun! Heck, let's have a family russian-roulette at the back table too! Little Johnny and Belinda will just love the rush! Is that what you folks packin' are trying to achieve?

I kinda believe that the 2nd amendment was established to protect your home, your castle, your personal property... all of that isn't hanging around in some crowded eating establishment.

Leave you weapons at home dude!

 

[Tomcat]

I kinda believe that the 2nd amendment was established to protect your home, your castle, your personal property... all of that isn't hanging around in some crowded eating establishment.

Leave you weapons at home dude!

So I can protect my family at home, but not when we go out anywhere? Who's going to protect us when we get out of the car to go shopping, or out to eat?

Did you notice that the recent shootings were in "GUN FREE ZONES" it was illegal for the shooter to have a firearm in the first place? Would the shooter have picked the same place if he thought that someone might have a gun and return fire? What if just one person had a gun and returned fire?

What about the Mall shooting, I think was in Minnesota, where a person legally carrying a gun returned fire and the shooter went down a service hallway and shot himself? IIRC no one was killed in that and it got very little media atention.

 

[DooDoo1402]

So I can protect my family at home, but not when we go out anywhere? Who's going to protect us when we get out of the car to go shopping, or out to eat?

Did you notice that the recent shootings were in "GUN FREE ZONES" it was illegal for the shooter to have a firearm in the first place? Would the shooter have picked the same place if he thought that someone might have a gun and return fire? What if just one person had a gun and returned fire?

What about the Mall shooting, I think was in Minnesota, where a person legally carrying a gun returned fire and the shooter went down a service hallway and shot himself? IIRC no one was killed in that and it got very little media atention.

So upon your analogy of those events you believe one-lone gun carrying lunatic is a sound just for carrying, but you couldn't fathom if there were several (bad tempered) lunatics packin' pieces or other weapons what might happen? Perhaps the casualty and death toll could or would be much higher? I just don't get the reality of the MSM baloney that "gun free zones" have anything to do with anything. Criminals or even lunatics will find ways to cause mass destruction one way or another. Public packin' is just aking for the shoot out at high corral! My opinion anyway.

And upon my analysis of your response, you seem too unstable to conceal any weapons.... lol.

 

[Gilligan]

And upon my analysis of your response, you seem too unstable to conceal any weapons.... lol.

The irony is very strong with this one.

 

[vince77]

You're in line at a 7/11 buying coffee. You're an off duty cop..., heading home.... with your weapon on your hip.... you're outside your jurisdiction.

The guy at the front of the line pulls a gun out, tells the clerk this is a stick up and demands two cartons of smokes. The clerk complies and the robber runs out of the store. What should the off-duty cop do?

 

[DooDoo1402]

The irony is very strong with this one.

Ah! our marooned silly sailor! But, did you by chance actually agree with me here; or was that more finger-in-the-eye criticism?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You're in line at a 7/11 buying coffee. You're an off duty cop..., heading home.... with your weapon on your hip.... you're outside your jurisdiction.

The guy at the front of the line pulls a gun out, tells the clerk this is a stick up and demands two cartons of smokes. The clerk complies and the robber runs out of the store. What should the off-duty cop do?

This:


Off duty cop shoots armed robber - YouTube

 

[Gilligan]

Ah! our marooned silly sailor! But, did you by chance actually agree with me here; or was that more finger-in-the-eye criticism?

Yes.

 

[glhs837]

I kinda believe that the 2nd amendment was established to protect your home, your castle, your personal property... all of that isn't hanging around in some crowded eating establishment.

Leave you weapons at home dude!

Well, sorry, but lots of writings from the founders seem to indicate that your belief is incorrect, that it's intent was to allow the citizens to be the final arbiters over the continuance of the government they were establishing. They knew, being scholars, that governments can change over time, and stop being the servant of the people. So they built in the 2nd as a fail-safe. Given that, how would that change your opinion?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, sorry, but lots of writings from the founders seems to indicate that your belief is incorrect, that it's intent was to allow the citizens to be the final arbiters over the continuance of the government they were establishing. they knew, being scholars, that governments can change over time, and stop eing the servant of the people. So they built in the 2nd as a fail-safe. Given that, how would that change your opinion?

Here's that logic spelled out;

"You don't need guns to prevent the government from becoming too powerful. The government is too powerful for you to do anything about it anyway."

Call it the Bobby Knight argument; If you're gonna be raped, may as well not fight back and just try to enjoy it.

 

[Mama_Mia08]

There's probably quite a few people around me on a daily basis that are carrying. A responsible gun owner is going to have all the proper permits and not advertise they have a gun. I grew up around hunters and people carrying concealed guns. So I personally dont feel threatened. Unfortunately, we live in a country that punishes the innocent. A crazy person shoots kids and now ALL gun owners will pay the price. Yes, i agree w/the universal background check. However, a crazy person or criminal will get the weapons if they really want them.

Should family members of a mentally unstable person be able to have weapons in their house? How does the family and state figure out that the person is unstable to begin with? Supposedly, they want to leave it up to family and friends to report to the police that a gun owner is unstable. Do you really think that they will do that? The mother of the CT shooter taught her son to shoot and essentially provided him w/the weapons.

I'm pro common sense and that is a quality that is serious lacking now a days.

 

[glhs837]

Here's that logic spelled out;

"You don't need guns to prevent the government from becoming too powerful. The government is too powerful for you to do anything about it anyway."

Call it the Bobby Knight argument; If you're gonna be raped, may as well not fight back and just try to enjoy it.

I don't think that's a valid argument itself, though. Systems wise, of course the armed forces have a ridiculous advantage, but that supposes, of course, that the Armed Forces will support lock stock and barrel, when I think that's not a forgone conclusion. Many military folks are well aware that first line in the oath is to support and defend the Constitution. Did a look around on Officer.com this AM, and seems about %85 or better of LEOs say they would not enforce wholesale firearms confiscation. And a bunch of NY LEOs who said flat out they would not enforce the new mag size restrictions on an otherwise law abiding citizen.

 

[DooDoo1402]

Well, sorry, but lots of writings from the founders seem to indicate that your belief is incorrect, that it's intent was to allow the citizens to be the final arbiters over the continuance of the government they were establishing. They knew, being scholars, that governments can change over time, and stop being the servant of the people. So they built in the 2nd as a fail-safe. Given that, how would that change your opinion?

Writings from our founders? rotf! Opinions are like a@@holes. Everyone has one! I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else one way or another. The OP asked for opinions and feedback. I gave them mine.

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading; unless you come from the Vrai of dumb reading comprehension... Try here!

Note what OUR supreme court ruled concerning protection... IN THE HOME dude! The founders didn't have crowded schools, malls or eating establishments, and back then, most folks grew up with gun ownership as a necessity, not a leisure hobby like we do today. And I believe everyone understands that it is NOT how "WE THINK" the founders thought; it is absolute on how we apply it today. After all, we are in a different century. Sorry, but I don't even believe law-abiding citizens should mass pack because as I have stated firmly before, there are LOTS of unstable so-called normal people out there.

Again, read the 2nd amendment again. It is your right to protect your property and home... and they are not scattered about in malls, restaurants or highways. They are where....? Go ahead! Say it! at HOME!

 

[DooDoo1402]

I don't think that's a valid argument itself, though. Systems wise, of course the armed forces have a ridiculous advantage, but that supposes, of course, that the Armed Forces will support lock stock and barrel, when I think that's not a forgone conclusion. Many military folks are well aware that first line in the oath is to support and defend the Constitution. Did a look around on Officer.com this AM, and seems about %85 or better of LEOs say they would not enforce wholesale firearms confiscation. And a bunch of NY LEOs who said flat out they would not enforce the new mag size restrictions on an otherwise law abiding citizen.

Spread more of your lunatic baloney! NO ONE is trying to confiscate your guns for no reason dude. Stop the propaganda! But then, you prolly never lived in a city like NY... Try a few years there sometime and let us know how your redneck gunslinger ways prevail...

 

[Gilligan]

Again, read the 2nd amendment again. It is your right to protect your property and home... and they are scattered about it malls, restaurants or highways.

Clearly you have some radical powers of comprehension that the rest of us are not gifted with. Help a feller out and point out where the 2nd says all that stuff you say it does. TIA.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Gilligan]

Spread more of your lunatic baloney! NO ONE is trying to confiscate your guns for no reason dude. ..

Then what IS the reason....dude?

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't think that's a valid argument itself, though. Systems wise, of course the armed forces have a ridiculous advantage, but that supposes, of course, that the Armed Forces will support lock stock and barrel, when I think that's not a forgone conclusion. Many military folks are well aware that first line in the oath is to support and defend the Constitution. .

We were having that very conversation the other day about EOTWAWKI and what it might look like; enormous natural disaster, civil war and that was THE question; where would the military come down? We here in the valley can deal with a lot of zombies pouring North and West from the cities because we're all armed but, it would come down to holding out in no time if we had no logistical support from the military. Communications, air control, power, etc, let alone actual opposition.

It became 1860 rather quickly as those exact same questions were what mattered; arsenals, command and control, all of that.

One thing's for sure, the cities and all their vaunted diversity would turn into chaos but real quick once the power was off and the food stopped coming in. I mean, think about it; what does, say NYC have in terms of endurance if the major arteries were cut to truck supply? A few days? A week, tops?

This is yet another reason it is critical, in my view, that the GOP lay down in no uncertain terms what we stand for and why. It would make it a whole lot easier for the military to honor their oath if they knew who else did.

 

[DooDoo1402]

Then what IS the reason....dude?

You just can't keep up! Let the adults discuss this. Go back to your booze!

 

[DooDoo1402]

We were having that very conversation the other day about EOTWAWKI and what it might look like; enormous natural disaster, civil war and that was THE question; where would the military come down? We here in the valley can deal with a lot of zombies pouring North and West from the cities because we're all armed but, it would come down to holding out in no time if we had no logistical support from the military. Communications, air control, power, etc, let alone actual opposition.

It became 1860 rather quickly as those exact same questions were what mattered; arsenals, command and control, all of that.

One thing's for sure, the cities and all their vaunted diversity would turn into chaos but real quick once the power was off and the food stopped coming in. I mean, think about it; what does, say NYC have in terms of endurance if the major arteries were cut to truck supply? A few days? A week, tops?

This is yet another reason it is critical, in my view, that the GOP lay down in no uncertain terms what we stand for and why. It would make it a whole lot easier for the military to honor their oath if they knew who else did.

Won't happen too often... but I actually agree with you and your response is quite frank. I am positive that their are many in the military that wish a total revolution or civil war would happen here. After all, what good are those billions poured into WMD if they can only play with them!