Starbucks and Guns

[Wind Song]

Fine my dear, but very few people go around overly armed. Even when I was working I carried two firearms. I would say 99.9% of those who carry carry ONE handgun. So are you saying that ONE handgun is over armed?

In Starbucks? You bet one handgun is over doing it.

[Dilloduck]

Seriously---I hate to be out of fashion. Overly armed ? Heaven forbid.

[Wind Song]

Seriously---I hate to be out of fashion. Overly armed ? Heaven forbid.

If you want to be overly armed wear an octopus costume to Starbucks and leave your gun at home.

[Dilloduck]

If you want to be overly armed wear an octopus costume to Starbucks and leave your gun at home.

I decided to carry it in my teeth

[darin]

I'd feel the exact opposite. I don't want to live in an 1800's wild west town.

The 1800s West was among the safest, low-crime periods/locations in history; at least compared to the 'civilized' cities back east.

In a thorough review of the “West was violent” literature, Bruce Benson (1998) discovered that many historians simply assume that violence was pervasive—even more so than in modern-day America—and then theorize about its likely causes. In addition, some authors assume that the West was very violent and then assert, as Joe Franz does, that “American violence today reflects our frontier heritage” (Franz 1969, qtd. in Benson 1998, 98). Thus, an allegedly violent and stateless society of the nineteenth century is blamed for at least some of the violence in the United States today.
In a book-length survey of the “West was violent” literature, historian Roger McGrath echoes Benson’s skepticism about this theory when he writes that “the frontier-was-violent authors are not, for the most part, attempting to prove that the frontier was violent. Rather, they assume that it was violent and then proffer explanations for that alleged violence” (1984, 270).
In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved”

http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=803

[fj1200]

In Starbucks? You bet one handgun is over doing it.

So the first step to acceptance would be to accept that your issue here is within you.

The first step is to recognize that the cause of anger is not what stimulated or triggered it. Anger is the response to the trigger. The cause of anger is the part of of that responds to the trigger, not the trigger itself.

[fj1200]

The 1800s West was among the safest, low-crime periods/locations in history; at least compared to the 'civilized' cities back east.

She has already ignored that information once in this thread.

[tailfins]

Fashion statement or fetish? A group of men wearing their guns into Starbucks, WTF is up with that? Impotence?

So if it's women carrying in their purse, no problem right? Shall I mark you down as being in favor of concealed carry?

[Wind Song]

I decided to carry it in my teeth

Be careful now, don't trip and fall and blow your own head off!

So if it's women carrying in their purse, no problem right? Shall I mark you down as being in favor of concealed carry?

No, I'm not in favor of concealed carry either.

She has already ignored that information once in this thread.

You guys with your NRA links crack me up.

So the first step to acceptance would be to accept that your issue here is within you.

The first step to acceptance would be that I feel the way I do. I have a need for safety, and hanging out with a bunch of armed yahoos isn't safe.

[tailfins]

You guys with your NRA links crack me up.

What NRA link involves spending time in suburban Atlanta and commonly seeing firearms in public places? You're free to visit Norcross, Marietta, Smyrna, Duluth, Alpharetta, Cumming, Lake Lanier, etc. and see for yourself.

[Wind Song]

What NRA link involves spending time in suburban Atlanta and commonly seeing firearms in public places? You're free to visit Norcross, Marietta, Smyrna, Duluth, Alpharetta, Cumming, Lake Lanier, etc. and see for yourself.

I dream of a society where Americans come to truly respect one another and put their guns away. Forever. May American culture mature and may we as a people grow out of our gun fixation.

In the meantime, please stay away from me with your pistolas, boys.

[ConHog]

The first step to acceptance would be that I feel the way I do. I have a need for safety, and hanging out with a bunch of armed yahoos isn't safe.

WIndy, I am highly in favor of stringent standards on who can carry a handgun in public; but to just lump everyone together and call them yahoos if they carry a gun is stupid. Would you like us to lump you in with the weirdos who parade through the streets half naked screaming that they are here they are queer and we should get used to it?

Every group has it's nuts. But by and large most gun owners 1. don't even carry on a regular basis anyway 2. are responsible folks.

The idiot who walks into a starbucks and starts shooting up the place in all likelihood is just an idiot who if not for a gun would have found some other way to be an idiot.

[fj1200]

You guys with your NRA links crack me up.

Please point out the NRA's involvement in my link. Or is an NRA link any that shows the folly of your insecurities?

The first step to acceptance would be that I feel the way I do. I have a need for safety, and hanging out with a bunch of armed yahoos isn't safe.

You'll either have to show how open carry is harmful to your safety or accept that the issue is within you.

[ConHog]

Personally I think the open carry crowd are idiots and 99% of them wouldn't know what to do if a situation where they needed a gun came up anyway. So the whole argument is laughable, BUT Sky is trying the old "everyone who carries handguns is dangerous" routine here, and that shit isn't going to fly.

[tailfins]

WIndy, I am highly in favor of stringent standards on who can carry a handgun in public; but to just lump everyone together and call them yahoos if they carry a gun is stupid. Would you like us to lump you in with the weirdos who parade through the streets half naked screaming that they are here they are queer and we should get used to it?

Every group has it's nuts. But by and large most gun owners 1. don't even carry on a regular basis anyway 2. are responsible folks.

The idiot who walks into a starbucks and starts shooting up the place in all likelihood is just an idiot who if not for a gun would have found some other way to be an idiot.

Places from Georgia to Vermont don't restrict guns in public. It doesn't appear to be a problem in practice. However you raise an interesting point. Regarding idiots, should disorderly conduct laws be more vigorously enforced? The same can be said about those who parade through the street. If they don't tie up traffic, who cares? Ignore them and they will go away.