Is there a legal (or moral or ethical) duty to shop at a store with policies you oppose?

[TPaine7]

If a store does something that you don't like (or fails to do something that you want them to) and you decide to take your business elsewhere, are you therefore wrong? Does your freedom as a human being not extend to deciding where to spend your money?

Bret Eulberg is the owner of Robert Haack Diamonds at 76th and Layton in Greenfield. He made a choice to say he would prohibit concealed weapons in his store. But now, he's receiving angry phone calls and messages threatening a boycott.

"We're getting phone calls saying we're not going to come to your store supporting you because you're against gun rights. We're not against gun rights, my contention is if a bad guy's in my store and you're a good samaritan in my store and you see the bad guy whipping out the gun, we already have security procedures in place to protect ourselves," said Eulberg Friday.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20110624-concealed-carry-business-boycott,0,5236383.story

People post to this site who support a store owner's choice to ban concealed guns, but condemn a potential customer's choice not to shop there. The word "thug" has even been used, as if the choice not to shop at a store was equivalent to a choice to rob it.

Won't someone please explain this to me? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Why is it that only the store owner has the right to make a choice? Do his current and potential customers OWE him their business? If so, why do businesses waste billions on advertising? If so, by what legal, moral, or ethical theory do they owe their hard-earned money to businesses? And why does this theory of business owed not extend to those who say they'll only shop at places that forbid guns?

Is there an explanation for this apparent bald-faced inconsistency? Is there some logic, no matter how tenuous? Or is this just another example of the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field having its way with the minds of its devotees?

[shadowrider]

1. I won't go into any private business that chooses to ban weapons

It's their choice to ban, my choice to spend my $ elsewhere.

[nebenaube]

2. My favorite watering hole is putting up a sign...

and if you don't want to spend your money there, that's just fine with me and the rest of the patrons.

[DrDan]

5. agree - I would gladly show my support by spending some money there

[eqfan592]

13. I'm sure that sign will prove extremely effective...

...at stopping all criminals from bringing firearm into establishments. Nobody must question the almighty power of THE SIGN!!!!!!!!

[DrDan]

19. so - an owner that objects to guns in their establishment offends you?

[eqfan592]

24. I wouldn't say it "offends" me...

...so much as it identifies the store owner as something of an idiot IMHO.

[DrDan]

26. seems to me a store owner should be free to run their business as they see fit

(as long as within the law) and shoppers are free where to spend their money as they see fit.

(I also think business owners should remain as apolitical as possible. To do otherwise just runs the customers away.)

That said, I would actively support a business that operates in a gun-free environment. I do not particularly care to spend my time with those that have a need to carry a gun where ever they go endangering others.

[eqfan592]

27. And that is your right.

And I will actively deny my support to a company that feels that those who legally conceal carry are somehow "endangering others" any more than any other person is at any given time, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

[DrDan]

28. and that is your right

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. I applaud a civil exchange...

...and the freedom found among those who can peacefully agree to disagree.

[Taitertots]

32. Prove that people legally carrying guns endangers the people around them

What evidence did you use when you came to this conclusion?

[DrDan]

47. common sense

[TPaine7]

49. Common sense, as any scientifically literate person knows, is often wrong n/t

[DanTex]

69. This is true, which is why the vast majority of studies on the gun issue come down on one side

That would be the "more guns = more death" side.

This debate has been had many times in recent weeks here. I personally have cited some 10-20 different studies. The amount of actual scientific evidence presented by the pro side is next to nothing. A lot of empty assertions that "the scientific evidence is on the pro side". Funny how, by the time the statistics make it into scientific journals, they switch over to the "anti" side. Hmmmm

Still, the pro side likes to dismiss the science, and continue with the "no evidence" line. And I don't expect to convince many pros of anything.

But to those who correctly point out that common sense implies that more guns cause more death. Rest assured, the scientific community comes down pretty heavily on your side.

[TPaine7]

70. If more guns = more death, how is it that as the number of guns and the number of people

licensed to carry them in public has skyrocketed the rate of GUN deaths has plummeted?

Why should I be impressed with "scientific" papers, of whatever pedigree, that prove something that is objectively false? When the consensus of fluid dynamicists and physicists and aeronautical engineers was that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly, did you doubt reality--or does that type of faith apply only in gun related "science"?

Besides the in-your-face fact that increased numbers, availability and carriage of guns hasn't caused more deaths, many people here have pointed out logical and methdological flaws in your cited "studies." And I have pointed out that the anti-gun CDC spent millions on an exhaustive study reviewing the scientific literature and admitted that there was no conclusive evidence that gun control has had an affect on violent crime. Apparently, the CDC, though biased in your favor, is incompetent.

It stands to reason that doctors are generally biased against weapons that inflict harm on bodies they try to heal. It also stands to reason that they are not the best "scientists" to evaluate criminological evidence, and that their peers are poorly qualified to find the flaws in their methodology. A group of criminologists checking the work of another criminologist on an epidemiological study wouldn't be credible "peer review" either.

What matters is the quality of the "scientific" papers, not their quantity. And it stands to reason that criminological papers in medical journals would be of inferior quality to those in criminological journals, just like medical papers in criminological journals would be inferior to those in medical journals.

But I think you're right about us convincing each other. Eventually the medical-criminological paper writers will be debunked even in their own incestuous circles. Then, I hope, you will be willing to admit that the bumblebee can fly.

[DanTex]

95. Like I said, no scientific evidence.

The most important take-away here is that the difference between the "pro" arguments and the "anti" arguments is that the "anti" arguments generally appear in scientific journals, while the "pro" arguments appear on the internet. This is not a 100% thing, there are a few pro-gun studies, but they are vastly outnumbered by the studies concluding "more guns = more death". I thought maybe we might get treated to a John Lott or Gary Kleck study, but nothing.

Anyway, I have no illusions that more scientific evidence will change the minds of any "pros". But, to those whose common sense tells you that increased gun prevalence causes more death, rest assured, the scientific consensus is definitely on your side. The best way to find out about this is to look at the research. But failing that, you can look at the fact that the "pros", when challenged, generally resort to attacking the scientific literature rather than citing it.


Also, I have no intention of getting into another big debate -- I've addressed these arguments in other posts, and some of the answers can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x428987#430360

I will answer your first point, though. Although the total number of guns in private hands has increased, as has the number of CCW permits, the key statistic in the literature is gun ownership rate, measured by the percentages of households and/or individuals with guns. The ownership rate is what has been most clearly linked to homicide and suicide rates. When people who already own guns buy more guns, this has much less effect. And, unlike the total number of guns, these two percentages have dropped over the last decade or two, along with the homicide rate.

Of course, the fact that gun ownership has declined at the same time as homicide, that alone doesn't prove anything. The link between gun ownership and homicide is based on more detailed statistical analyses. It's funny that it was you who first brought up the distinction between "common sense" and science, and now you find yourself defending informal internet arguments over peer reviewed research. To use your phrase, the things you are saying are not anything you hear from scientifically literate people, and especially not people familiar with gun research.


What's also kind of funny is that, in addition to making some mistaken claims about gun research, you have also repeated another very common piece of pseudoscience:

Why should I be impressed with "scientific" papers, of whatever pedigree, that prove something that is objectively false? When the consensus of fluid dynamicists and physicists and aeronautical engineers was that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly, did you doubt reality--or does that type of faith apply only in gun related "science"?

But this never happened -- this was never the consensus, and there are no peer reviewed papers stating that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

Writing off the scientific consensus isn't quite as easy as you might want to be.

[eqfan592]

99. Guys, just don't bother.

Dan honestly believes that a handful of papers that at best set the ground for further research (that the researchers never bother to do) written almost entirely by medical professionals who are unlikely to have a great deal of understanding of the field of criminology somehow equates to "a scientific consensus" on the issue of guns. This even in spite of the various studies done by ACTUAL CRIMINOLOGISTS that counter the claims made by the medical doctors, as well as the National Academy of Science coming flat out and saying that there is not enough evidence to support the conclusions reached by the various doctors that wrote the papers he holds so dear.

There is simply no reasoning with somebody that is THAT completely disconnected with reality (or is being that intellectually dishonest, one of the two).

[TPaine7]

105. Lurkers might get confused if we let BS slide... that's a legitimate reason to debate n/t

[eqfan592]

110. Yeah, I know. I just get sick of seeing his same BS over and over is all. nt

[TPaine7]

101. LOL. Your movement of the goalposts is noted.

You are trying--unsuccessfully--to divert me from the main point under discussion:

Like I said, no scientific evidence.

No, that's what I said. I said that the CDC, in spite of their obvious and documented bias in your favor said that there was no evidence that gun control affected violent crime. You said that more guns cause more death.

Let's review the conversation starting with your post 69:

69. This is true, which is why the vast majority of studies on the gun issue come down on one side

That would be the "more guns = more death" side.

YOU claim that according to scientific studies, more guns equal more death. There is a consensus, according to you. That's a far cry from the CDC's statement. (And no, I didn't miss you studious avoidance of the published results of their exhaustive review of the scientific literature, either.)

Experts in the medical field reviewed the "scientific" medical literature and concluded that there was no evidence. But let's keep this straight--that's my point, NOT yours.

70. If more guns = more death, how is it that as the number of guns and the number of people

Edited on Sun Jun-26-11 02:23 PM by TPaine7
licensed to carry them in public has skyrocketed the rate of GUN deaths has plummeted?

There are more guns and there are less deaths. That refutes your "more guns = more death" meme. Conclusively.

The link between gun ownership and homicide is based on more detailed statistical analyses. It's funny that it was you who first brought up the distinction between "common sense" and science, and now you find yourself defending informal internet arguments over peer reviewed research. To use your phrase, the things you are saying are not anything you hear from scientifically literate people, and especially not people familiar with gun research. 

The reason my argument sounded so silly is that I was refuting YOUR premise. YOU introduced the "more guns = more death" meme. It is simple-minded and scientifically illiterate, as well and flying in the face of reality. You may well have more sophisticated arguments, but YOU didn't make them. You made the silly, discredited and objectively false argument that "more guns = more death." I cannot refute the arguments that you don't make. You claimed that it was supported by scientific studies.

If I claim that over 20 mathematical studies written by PhDs show that 2 + 2 = 5.217, I can hardly accuse you of being innumerate for stooping to refute it. Nor should I complain that you simply referenced reality rather than citing "studies." Clearly counterfactual claims do not merit formal scientific refutation.

What's also kind of funny is that, in addition to making some mistaken claims about gun research, you have also repeated another very common piece of pseudoscience:

...

But this never happened -- this was never the consensus, and there are no peer reviewed papers stating that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument 

You misunderstand both my point and your source's point. I am not saying that the bumblebee can't fly--you are. Your claim that more guns = more death is equivalent to the claim that bumblebees can't fly. It is a rejection of objective and clear reality! Saying that until recently scientists couldn't account for bumblebee flight is not pseudoscience--it's a fact. And I didn't get it from a creationist website, I got at a very respected university from a professor of engineering.

This scientific paper ( http://eii.unex.es/profesores/bvinagre/documentos/Solving%20the%20Mystery%20of%20Insect%20Flight_%20Scientific%20American.pdf ) makes clear that insect flight is still mysterious, though no competent scientist would ever say that "bumblebees can't fly" in the face of reality, any more that any competent scientist would ever say that "more guns = more death" in the face of reality.

I will give you one point though. Saying that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly is a different thing than saying that aerodynamicists, physicists and engineers couldn't account for bumblebee flight. I was sloppy in the way I made my point.

Writing off the scientific consensus isn't quite as easy as you might want to be.

Your consensus is imaginary. There is no scientific consensus that "more guns = more death" any more than there is a scientific consensus that 2 + 2 = 17. And if there were such a scientific consensus, real "common sense" would tell any sensible person to ignore it when forming policy opinions--or balancing a checkbook.

[DanTex]

102. Whatever you do, make sure you don't cite an actual scientific study...

Anyway, I've said what I have to say, cited plenty of studies. The arguments by now have pretty much all been said on both sides. Ultimately, this will get worked out in the research circles, because the studies linking gun prevalence to homicide keep getting replicated and the few "pro" studies keep getting refuted.


Regarding the bumblebee issue, what you actually said was this:

the consensus of fluid dynamicists and physicists and aeronautical engineers was that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly

This is 100% false -- there was never such a consensus, and no scientific paper ever said a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. As with guns, it is no surprise that you are trying to twist things around to make your false statement seem true. But scientifically literate people know this is false, and they simply don't use this example, except perhaps ironically, as an example of something that someone who doesn't know much about science would say.

[TPaine7]

104. I cited a study--a study of studies, commissioned by the anti-gun CDC.

The fact that you studiously ignored it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quoting me: the consensus of fluid dynamicists and physicists and aeronautical engineers was that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly

This is 100% false -- there was never such a consensus, and no scientific paper ever said a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. As with guns, it is no surprise that you are trying to twist things around to make your false statement seem true. But scientifically literate people know this is false, and they simply don't use this example, except perhaps ironically, as an example of something that someone who doesn't know much about science would say.

You are correct, that was an overstatement. But I already conceded that minor point:

I will give you one point though. Saying that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly is a different thing than saying that aerodynamicists, physicists and engineers couldn't account for bumblebee flight. I was sloppy in the way I made my point.

You called me out on a minor point that I was using to illustrate the fact that your imaginary scientific consensus flies in the face of reality. It is simply false that "more guns = more death." It is simply false that a bumblebee can't fly. It matters not who says otherwise.

But thoughtful readers will note that while I quickly conceded that this minor side point was faultily expressed, you seem unable to concede the transparent falsity of your main point in post 69--"MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH."

You also seem unable to acknowledge the CDC study.

I am sure that you can and have cited numerous criminological "studies" conducted by injury prevention specialists and physicians working outside of their areas of expertise. I hope you are more impressed with them than reasonable people are with your dodging and weaving to avoid grappling with the MAIN THRUST of your post. (Oh, and your avoidance of the CDC study, too.)

[DanTex]

111. The NAS report.

The primary conclusion of the NAS report was that more data was needed -- a cautious conclusion in part due to awareness of political sensibilities. It uses phrases like "suggestive but not conclusive" to describe evidence. Of course, that was about a decade ago, and the research hasn't stopped. This is what the pros always seem to miss when citing the NAS panel. Since then a lot more research has been done, and it has mostly come down on one side. In particular, John Lott's work by now has been thoroughly refuted, at the time the flaws in his work not as clear.

Regarding "more guns = more death", you are really being silly here -- yes, it would be more precise to say "higher gun prevalence, measured by percentage of households and/or individuals owning guns, has been causally linked to increased homicide and suicide rates". So, fine, let's agree on that. Of course, there is much more to it even than that, and if I wanted to go on for 10 pages, I could give a much broader and precise explanation.

But I don't want to. Like I said in another post, with 10 pros for every anti here, I end up responding to every silly "pro" argument several times, and it gets tiring.

So, in conclusion, yes, there is a consensus, and the best way to realize this is to look at the research directly. I know you disagree. But then I also you know you haven't actually read much, if any, of the direct evidence.

[gejohnston]

126. what consensus?

All of the ones I have seen were done by the same few economists and MDs that received grants from the Joyce Foundation, that also funds astroturf anti gun groups like the Brady Campaign. Based on that, it is reasonable to suspect that evidence was made to fit a predetermined outcome. It would be foolish and naive for anyone not to. No such link has been found by any sociologist or criminologist who did not receive a grant from any interest group. That applies to Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi. Gary Mauser, or even Marvin Wolfgang. All of them started with a hypothesis that was the opposite of their results.

[Bold Lib]

128. What flaws in Lott's work? Can you please cite that?

Simply saying that there were flaws does not make it so.

[DanTex]

129. Lott's work.

Probably the most influential rebuttal to Lott is this paper:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

It's kind of long and technical. Here's a shorter and more readable discussion some of the issues:
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

[TPaine7]

133. You're funny. So you finally admit that "more guns = more death" is BS? Congratulations.

And I'm being silly for taking your statement at face value -- in a forum and discussion focused on gun policy, but you weren't silly to take my comment on bees at face value? You're acting like an all too typical anti. Man (or woman) up and admit you seriously misspoke--at least. The idea that more guns must necessarily mean more crime is ubiquitous on this site.

I love the way you hand wave away the NAS study with talk of politics. Tell me, do you find Joyce Foundation funded studies credible? Do you cite them?

I have read original sources, including Heminway. I found his critique of Kleck's survey to use circular logic and to ignore or minimize unfavorable data. I've read other authors (whose names escape me--it's be years since I reviewed the legal and criminological original sources) and found that they

* conflated criminal gun ownership with lawful ownership
* asked and answered irrelevant questions and grouping unlike things together (like using measure like arrests instead of convictions, or grouping lawful defensive killings--even by on duty police officers--with murders)
* ignored the fact that people with dangerous occupations (drug dealer, gangster, cop, private investigator, armed robber, etc.) tend to have more guns than people with normal occupations
* treating suicide as if it were equivalent to murder

I tell you what, I have much less time for these things than I did back when I first read up on guns--and changed my mind from and anti stance--so it is theoretically possible that you are right. I must keep and open mind. Give me three studies that meet my minimum criteria and I will make time to read them.

Here are my standards:

1) written or peer reviewed by people who study and evaluate human criminal behavior--criminologists, criminal psychologist or psychiatrists, or at least by people who specialize in human motivations like say an economist. I admit that patent clerks can do breakthrough theoretical physics, but I wouldn't read a patent or intellectual property journal to research physics. In the same way, I wouldn't read an injury prevention, medical, machinist, musical, artistic, epidemiological or poetry journal to learn about criminology.
2) doesn't use tricks like the ones outlined above to convey a false impression.
3) not funded by the Joyce Foundation or the like. I wouldn't cite to you a study funded by the NRA, respect my intelligence.
4) preferable not written by someone who has worked for the Joyce Foundation before and thus has a monetary incentive to not offend them.

Most impressive would be a formerly pro-gun scholar with criminological expertise who has changed sides based on the evidence that has caused the "consensus" you speak of.

[DanTex]

134. Like I said, only on the internet...

You know, there's a book called "More Guns, Less Crime". There's also a paper titled "More Guns, More Crime". In neither case is the total number of guns in circulation the key point. Both have been criticized, but I am not aware of anyone accusing either author of using a misleading title. This is because scientifically literate people don't play silly word games. But maybe I'm wrong, and you should email both John Lott and Mark Duggan with your brilliant critique...

You see, people familiar with the gun literature have seen phrases of the form "more guns __________" many times before. I made the mistake of assuming you might be such a person. Now I know better.

On the other hand, the bumblebee claim is something that is pretty much made only by non-scientifically literate people, mainly as an example for when "common sense" and personal observation trumps science -- the exact thing you criticized before doing it yourself. But don't take my word -- if you ever meet someone scientifically literate in person, just ask them, and I'm sure they'll explain.

Anyway, like I've said before, I've had this discussion with at least three other people on this board, and I have no intention of getting into the whole thing again. I made a long post in another thread responding to various critiques, including the ones you have made, and I have nothing to add. For example, your rejection of interdisciplinary research is something you don't find much in the scientific community, only on the gun-nets. And the reason a lot of the research is privately funded is due to the NRA's successful attack on the CDC's funding of gun studies. Etc... Nothing new here. I won't convince you, you won't convince me...

So reject away. I'm not interested in your personal criteria for who should be researching what, or what you consider a "trick", or what you approve of as legitimate research. The scientific community doesn't care either. That's why they use the peer review system, rather than the random-pro-gun-internet-site review system.


But, if you actually want to get into the research, a good place to start is the book by Hemenway (though I'm sure he's on the blacklist...). It's not available for free on the internet though. Moreover, a lot of the papers are also unfortunately also not freely available either. You can also take a look at the links I posted above in response to Lott above. Also a lot of Jens Ludwig's research is also available online.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/

[TPaine7]

137. Hmmm...

You know, there's a book called "More Guns, Less Crime". There's also a paper titled "More Guns, More Crime". In neither case is the total number of guns in circulation the key point. Both have been criticized, but I am not aware of anyone accusing either author of using a misleading title. This is because scientifically literate people don't play silly word games.

I wouldn't know, having read neither book. But I am not debating either of these men, and I do not assume that people here are not very serious and very literal when they say more guns = more crime. There is no "silly word game" here, I just took your statement at face value.

Furthermore, do you know Lott's key point from actually reading his book, or did you get your opinion from his reading his critics?

Personal observation does trump "science." Another way of saying that is that experiment trumps theory. Experimenters carefully make and record observations and their results overturn "science" or at least scientific theory. This has nothing to do with creationism, it is how science works. Folklore that scientists have laughed at has been vindicated by better science more than once. Folklore or not, however, and my bumblebee overstatement notwithstanding, my point stands. Empirical reality ALWAYS trumps peer reviewed published studies.

For example, your rejection of interdisciplinary research is something you don't find much in the scientific community, only on the gun-nets.

You didn't see me reject interdisciplinary research. In fact, you saw me explicitly accept it. I alluded to the fact that it can be the source of profound and fundamental discoveries. Re-read my post. Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his Special Theory or Relativity. That's what I was talking about when I mentioned patent clerks doing theoretical physics (sorry if this scientific illiterate went outside your vast scientific knowledge).

So I specifically acknowledged that interdisciplinary research can be extremely valuable and even revolutionize scientific fields.

The point is that even so, it is generally not profitable to read the theoretical physics musings of patent clerks until it is reviewed and accepted by competent physicists. Similarly, I would argue that it is not profitable to read the criminological musings of epidemiologists and safety specialists until is it is reviewed and accepted by criminologists. And yes, I acknowledge that every few thousand years you may be late accepting an Einstein.

That is a very different point, and one that you apparently missed. That is not rejection of interdisciplinary research, it is simply a smart way to look at things when you have limited time.

And the reason a lot of the research is privately funded is due to the NRA's successful attack on the CDC's funding of gun studies.

Privately funded is not the issue, the source of the private funding is. Would you trust a study on the health effects of cigarettes funded by Phillip Morris? Neither would I.

I wouldn't cite the NRA to you, but I will justify their motives in this case. Here are a couple of passages from a respected anti-gun reporter on a CDC official (with a very significant direct quote of the official at the end) that I paid for several years ago. I can't post a link, if it's still online you would have to pay for it too. Feel free to believe I'm lying if it helps you maintain your worldview.

Sick People With Guns 
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C. Author: William Raspberry Date: Oct 19, 1994 Start Page: a.23 Section: OP/ED Text Word Count: 703


My first thought was to recall Abraham Maslow's aphorism: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." Now I'm beginning to wonder if Mark Rosenberg's notion isn't worth a second thought.

Rosenberg's weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.

Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has.

...

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

No wonder you want the CDC producing "science"! To this scientifically illiterate boob, you start with the question and the data supplies the answer. CDC style "science," like Joyce Foundation "science" starts with the answer. How dare the NRA fight "science"?

This attitude and agenda are the reason I value the CDC commissioned study results so highly. Just like in a court, testimony against one's interest is the strongest.

When I studied and probed the gun issue years ago, this is the type of stuff I found in abundance.

Nevertheless, it is remotely possible that actual, real, "illiterate" science like I believe in--the type that goes from data to conclusions--now supports your side. But when I studied the issue from multiple angles it certainly didn't look that way to me.

In any event I will, as time allows, follow your links. You see, I do care what you think, if only because it may possibly be useful in enlightening me or at least honing my outlook.

[eqfan592]

50. Not a valid argument.

Simply calling something "common sense" does not actually make it so. And really, what is "common sense" to one person doesn't hold true for another, nor does it even make it a reality. You can still find people to this day who strongly believe that the weather is controlled by a god or gods, and that we must bend to their will in order to insure favorable weather conditions. This is to them "common sense."

[DrDan]

51. so don't accept it - your right to believe whatever you like

[Taitertots]

54. Then you should have no problem finding other people who have done the thinking for you

After all, if it is common sense, there should be no shortage of evidence to support your assertions.

[DrDan]

55. there are plenty that think similarly . . . but you knew that

[Taitertots]

56. Why haven't they bothered producing anything that supports their opinions?

Or do they all refuse to check to make sure their opinions are supported by reality.

[eqfan592]

57. Thinking similarly...

...and being able to back up those thoughts with incontrovertible evidence (or hell, even some controvertible evidence that is at least based somewhat solidly in reality and uses good reasoning and logic) are two different things.

[PavePusher]

59. And the Earth is flat, too.

I mean seriously, just look aroud you....

[tortoise1956]

138. Evidence does not support that conclusion

States that have loosened their gun laws have seen decreases in the rate of gun crimes that are sharper than those in states which have not followed that model. I know that that doesn't necessarily demonstrate a correlation, but it appears to be indicative of some sort of link...

Of course, if you have evidence that contradicts my post, please share it. I am always willing to listen to arguments supported by facts.

[NewMoonTherian]

81. I feel much the same way.

Private property rights are extremely important to me. I'm also very happy that there are places where people who are uncomfortable with certain conditions(guns, smoking, etc.) can do business in a hospitable environment. Myself, I steer clear of gun-ban zones, not to make a statement, but because I don't feel comfortable there.

[DrDan]

4. I would throw as much business as possible toward that business - and encourage other do to likewise

[LibertyFox]

12. You're avoiding the question in favor of waving your anti status around.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

98. So you are an advocate of drinking large amounts of alcohol?

"I would throw as much business as possible toward that business - and encourage other do to likewise"


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rpannier]

3. There is no obligation to go into any business that engages in things you oppose

But I would point out that not allowing you to take your gun into the man's store does not make him anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment anymore than having a sign that says "No Praying in this Store" or "No Swearing Allowed" would make him anti-religious freedom or anti-free speech.

[eqfan592]

15. You might be right...

...but it does make the store owner extremely gullible in my opinion, and maybe somewhat idiotic. But that is just my humble opinion.

And personally, I try to avoid doing business with people who so clearly identify themselves as being extremely gullible.

[TPaine7]

60. However, a store owner with a "No Praying in this Store" sign shouldn't be surprised if a devout

believer--say, for instance, one who took Paul's instruction to "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17, KJV) literally--took her business elsewhere.

To a person who constantly mutters communication to God, a store owner's personal opinions on religion might be beside the point. To a person who always carries a concealed weapon for protection, a store owner's personal opinion on the Second Amendment might be beside the point.

Of course an intelligent businessman would realize that many, many people who don't "pray without ceasing" would also be offended and take their business elsewhere, religious issues being as highly polarized as they are today. The same goes for the anti-concealed carry policy.

The store owner is actually being punished for stupidity, no matter his views on the Second Amendment.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. Shop wherever you want.

If you don't like something about the place, take your business somewhere else.

What's the big deal? The callers to his business probably weren't customers anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Depends on how strongly I feel about the issue and how the boyott effects.

With regard to a business in Texas putting up a gunbusters sign, I usually ignore them as they have no legal weight. My guns are concealed so the store doesn't know about it anyway. If a place has a 30.06 sign then I obey the sign, but they are really rare.

[lawodevolution]

8. The no guns sign is distributed as a childish acting out against the democratic process that

leads to shall issue concealed carry and expanded carry rights. The store owners who fall for the tantrum often change their minds later in an attempt to boost sales but I suspect some businesses that put up the sign fail and the business that replaces them does not put up the sign.

I think gun owners should become more organized as a boycotting group because most businesses cannot lose many customers and survive.

[backwoodsbob]

9. I generally wouldn't call a store

I just wouldn't go there

[eqfan592]

16. Agreed. nt

[spin]

22. I would and have. However I have always been polite ...

when I told them that the "No-Gun" sign on their door caused me to take by business to their competitor.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. IMHO...

...angry phone calls are out of line. If you want to avoid a store that posts signs you don't like, that's great. While you can opt to inform the owner of your feelings, anger would be out of line.

Fundamentally, there are three areas of consideration here: a moral level (is it evil), a legal level and personal/professional respect. There is, in general, nothing evil about concealed carry. Some areas may make concealed carry illegal in venues where the owner prohibits. But basically if you don't respect the owner's requirements/opinions, regardless of enforceability, why not take your business somewhere else?

[eqfan592]

17. But are not angry phonecalls....

....and emails often part of any good boycott campaign? When a business adopts a policy that you disagree strongly with, is it not very common to include some sort of communication to that business that you will be specifically avoiding them in the future so long as they hold the current policy?

Just about any boycott that certain progressive orgs have requested me to participate in also included a request to voice my displeasure with the business by either phone or email (or both). To me, it just seems par for the course...

[spin]

23. I fail to see any reason for an angry phone call ...

I can make my point politely and it may have more effect than an angry rant.

[eqfan592]

25. Oh, I agree.

So far as I don't see a need for an "angry rant" either. But I guess it depends on how you define an "angry phone call" then. We don't really have recordings of the calls in question. But I could easily picture the store owner viewing even a politely worded message as an "angry one" because the content of the message expressed displeasure with his stores policy.

I think one can voice displeasure with somebody (or even anger with them) in a manner that still remains polite.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. re: par for the course...

I suppose there is a spectrum to how the decisions of some will be seen by others.

If a business owner makes a decision that has a profound effect on the individual, it would be reasonable to expect a certain level of emotion in response. Most businesses I frequent would simply be written off and probably just never see me again if an issue was that important. Were I trying to effect a change in the owner's attitude, I would suspect that a carrot would gain more than a stick. Perhaps these angry calls are only serving to further alienate the owner and convince him that he is better off without these folks as customers.

My point is just that civil dialog will almost always gain more than anger. Greenfield, WI doesn't seem like the Big Apple and some of those actually negatively affected by this decision probably know the owner at least a bit.

Many times decisions made for business are financially motivated by factors not readily apparent such as insurance/security service changes.

Knowledge is power and credibility is the ultimate currency.

[eqfan592]

39. Well, like I was telling spin...

...I think it really depends on how you define "angry phone calls." We don't really know what tone these calls are really taking on. I could easily see a store owner getting a call from somebody stating they would not do business with them because of their policy feeling that the caller was "angry" and thus an "angry caller."

I will agree that just calling up and cussing the store owner out is not likely to lead to anything positive in any way shape or form.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. We also don't know if the quote published by the media...

...was prompted by a loaded question.

I have on a very few limited occasions run into those who probably won't benefit from any level of reason and civility. At times, an angry call proclaiming your departure may bring a certain closure for some of us. ;)

[eqfan592]

44. Hehe, true enough. :) nt

[eilen]

11. His store, his rules.

I can understand the man being nervous about guns being carried into a diamond store. I think he likely has heard the saying "Never tempt an honest man."

[eqfan592]

18. And of course the sign...

...is clearly going to prevent anybody with criminal intent bringing in a gun to the store....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. It does simplify security...

...as in:
- During a robbery, shoot anyone with a gun who you don't recognize as one of the good guys.
This could of course backfire in a big way.

[Bold Lib]

66. That's not what the question was though.

You answered a question such as "Is it wrong for the guy to put up a sign banning guns?" But the question asked is, "Is it wrong to not take your business to a store that puts up a sign that you are apposed to?"

So, care to answer the OPs question?

[eilen]

71. No, it is not wrong to bring your business where you care to. nt

[DWC]

20. The answer to the OP is No !

The Free Enterprise System is just that - Free.

The business owners are Free to establish their policies for doing business and the consumers are Free to determine who gets their money. The marketplace determines business success or failure.

Semper Fi,

[DanTex]

21. Boycott is a common political tactic, perfectly legal. However...

In this case, it is pretty clear that this is a small businessman making a completely apolitical decision -- he is trying to keep his employees and customers safe. Of course, the boycotters might argue that he is actually mistaken in his safety assessment, but then the GOP/NRA has always had a rocky relationship with logic and fact. In any case, whether he's right or not, it's not like this guy is donating part of his profits to the Brady campaign.

Compare this to another recent right-wing boycott, which I oppose purely on political grounds: the boycott of Old Navy because of Old Navy's support for It Gets Better, a group which helps fight bullying and suicide among gay teenagers.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/afa-launches-old-navy-boycott-supporting-anti-bullying-group

Now, along with the vast majority of liberals, I support both gun control and gay rights, and frankly I find the anti-gay stuff more morally repugnant than the gun stuff. And, yes, I would probably use the word "thuggish" to describe anyone who boycotts Old Navy because Old Navy is trying to help curb bullying of gay teenagers. But maybe I would be out of line in using that term. After all, Old Navy is a large chain, and they are taking something of a political stand by supporting a GBTL group, so a political response is not entirely unexpected. I'm sure that the right-wing nutjobs would argue that the Old Navy boycott is the modern day equivalent of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

In the situation this OP mentions, we have the OK Corral Appreciation Society attacking a small businessman's livelihood for trying his best to protect the safety of his employees and customers. It's a bit like boycotting a neighborhood store because they use solar power, just to spite the environment.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. It is nice to see that you support law enforcement officers.

An OK Corral Appreciation Society would be in appreciation of LEOs because Virgil Earp was town marshall and a deputy U.S. marshall. That makes him a Federal LEO. Morgan Earp was already a deputy town marshall before the famous shoot-out. Wyatt had been previously deputized. Altough not deputized Holliday was acting in support of law enforcement.

[TPaine7]

53. I've found that many antis have a rocky relationship with logic and fact, too.

One case in point is the hypocrisy and illogic described in the OP.

So your position is that failing to shop in this businessman's establishment is immoral--"attacking a small businessman's livelihood"? After all, he's just "trying his best to protect the safety of his employees and customers", right?

How would you feel about someone "attacking the parental role of loving parents" who were "trying their best to set their child's broken leg" using faith healing? At some point, doesn't the disconnect with reality merit a strong response?

I don't mean to totally equate these situations; the businessman has a right to do what he is doing and the parents have no right to cripple their child. Customers can--and do--decide not to darken his door, a child cannot as readily choose to leave a "faithful" home. But both parents and businessman are using emotion and misinformation to make decisions. And while the businessman thinks he has the means to protect himself, he cheerfully ignores the fact that some of his patrons may want to be prepared to do more than be helplessly herded into the back room (for example) if he loses the encounter.

The statistical evidence says that civilians do better in armed conflict than do police officers. The fear of concealed carriers is based on ignorance and misinformation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. I boycott Chick-Fil-A because of *their* homophobic stance.

And I rather liked their food (YMMV). But I find their corporate stance against marriage equality repugnant, so I will not eat

there, and am not shy about telling others why.


You have made an error that too many other gun control advocates have:

Liberalism/progressivism automatically means support for gun control.

[PavePusher]

115. "the OK Corral Appreciation Society "

You just can't help tossing off the back-handed insinuations, based on no evidence but your own paranoia and bigotry, can you?

"attacking a small businessman's livelihood" More loaded wording. No "attack" is happening.

"trying his best to protect the safety of his employees and customers." Facts not in evidence, his statement implied only his employees.


And you continually try to link this to right-wing actions: "Compare this to another recent right-wing boycott..."

You just don't quit. I gotta admire obtuse stubborness, no matter where I find it.

[Hoyt]

30. If stores were prohibiting human rights, I'd boycott. But, not allowing guns improves society.

And those who believe guns should be left at home deserve consideration too.

Would not boycott stores who ban guns, swords, spear guns, bombs, bottles of gasoline, etc. Might even patronize more often.

I believe most people should leave guns at home. I think I'm in the vast majority too.

[TPaine7]

48. "And those who believe guns should be left at home deserve consideration too."

Of course they deserve consideration.

What they don't deserve is the power to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights. Consideration does not equal power to control others.

[Bold Lib]

68. I believe all here understand what you believe. Telling us again does not answer the OP

though. Would you please give a direct answer to the very simple question in the O.P?

[Bold Lib]

87. I see that you have yet to answer the O.P. but find lots of time to take

cheap shots at fellow DU members.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=431497&mesg_id=431665

[Hoyt]

31. Would not boycott stores prohibit guns, machetes, spearguns, bombs, bottles of gas, pet rats, etc.

Gunners need to understand most people prefer they leave the dang things at home. They can do whatever they want with them there.

[eqfan592]

33. You OK over there, Hoyt?

Were you just unable to fit all your thoughts into a single post and instead needed to post two replies to the same post?

[Hoyt]

34. Sorry, found it ludicrous you guys would boycott establishments who'd rather not have armed patrons.

[eqfan592]

36. Yeah, I got that.

I just didn't understand why you couldn't put that all in one post is all. :P

[Blown330]

43. I find it ludicrous...

....that you harbor such fear of inanimate objects and hate for law-abiding citizens.


I won't patronize any establishment that opted to ban legally possessed firearms. Luckily that isn't an issue around my area as the vast majority of business owners are much smarter than those who would believe the hand-picked statistics of the VPC and other like-dull minded groups.

[Hoyt]

92. There are many times more law abiding citizens who can walk out of their house without a gun.

Public carriers make up a small percentage of law abiding citizens. But carriers are a danger to society and more and more guns will just make it more difficult to deal with down the road when people say "enough."

[spin]

45. There are currently 819,135 people with valid Florida concealed weapons permits ...

Florida's "shall issue" concealed carry law as been in effect since 1987. It has proven to be a very successful program.

Store owners in Florida lack your paranoia of honest people who carry concealed. I can't remember the last time that I noticed a "No-Guns" sign on the door of a store.

[eqfan592]

46. Was it like that from the start?

Or was there an initial negative reaction on the part of some store owners that has since dwindled?

[spin]

52. In the very beginning there was a very negative reaction from store owners ...

which was understandable. Florida attracted national media attention while the struggle to pass "shall issue" concealed carry was in progress. Florida had allowed concealed carry before but carry permits were granted locally and were not (as I remember) valid state wide. The idea of granting any person who met the requirements the right to carry a concealed weapons was definitely a bold change.

History of concealed carry laws in the U.S.

The modern history of concealed carry laws began in October 1987. At that time, the state of Florida enacted a controversial law allowing the concealed carry of firearms in public places. Nearly all states prohibited concealed carry laws prior to 1987. When concealed carry was allowed prior to 1987, it was only allowed under discretionary rules determined by the government. The new characteristic of concealed carry laws enacted since 1987 is one in which the government must issue a concealed carry license to any applicant that is in compliance with licensing criteria. <1>
http://knol.google.com/k/carrying-a-concealed-weapon-in-ohio#History_of_concealed_carry_laws_in_the_U%282E%29S%282E%29

"No-gun" signs were very common on store doors for the first six months and then they began to disappear.

I have to admit that while I supported the Florida "shall issue" concealed carry law from the start, I never expected it to be as successful as it has proven. You have a far higher chance of getting struck by lightning in Florida then being shot by a Floridian who has a carry permit (assuming that you are not attacking him with the intent inflict serious injury or to murder.)

[eqfan592]

58. Gotcha, thanks.

I imagine we may see something similar in Wisconsin, then.

[Hoyt]

73. You have even less chance of being shot by millions of Floridians who could get a permit, but don't.

They are just as law abiding, if not more so. Certainly not obsessed with guns and muggers behind trees.

They also can leave home without a gun. That says a lot to me.

[eqfan592]

78. Oh poor Hoyt.

You talking about people being obsessed with anything is identical to the pot calling the kettle black. ;)

[spin]

83. Despite all your paranoia and fear of honest licensed citizens who carry...

there have been very few incidences over the last 24 years that "shall issue" concealed carry has been the law where a licensed Floridan used his firearm to commit a crime or to recklessly endanger innocent people.

There have been numerous instances in which a Floridian used his firearm for legitimate self defense against an attacker. Many if not most of those did not even result in gunfire. Often, when the attacker realizes that his victim is armed, he breaks off the attack. While there have been a few times that a Floridian with a carry permit has misused his weapon and a tragedy resulted, the fact remains that many tragedies have been averted by Floridians who legally carry.

You appear to have very little faith that honest citizens who have met the requirements to carry a concealed weapon which include a criminal background check and training will prove responsible enough to actually carry a firearm in public. The facts and statistics on concealed carry prove that your fears are unjustified but still you persist.

You also ignore the fact that because criminals are well aware that many Floridians are armed, they are not as likely to attempt to victimize a person on the street. Not all criminals are rocket scientists so we still have instances but one encounter with an armed citizen or hearing of such an incident from one of your friends often causes the amateur crook try a different criminal activity.

edited to add further comment

[Hoyt]

88. I trust law abiding citizens who are not so irrational they feel they have to carry a gun in public.

They are just as law abiding, and you don't have to worry about the future impact on society of more guns or some cowboy saving his own ass by dodging and shooting in a crowd.

[spin]

97. But you do appear to fear law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed ...

even though the facts and statistics show that your fear is irrational and that such people present no realistic threat to you.

[Hoyt]

114. 90+% of law abiding citizens don't see the need to carry.

[spin]

118. So? ...

That is their choice.

My point is that you seem to have an irrational fear of those that do despite all the statistics that show that those who are licensed to carry concealed present no realistic threat to other honest citizens.

[PavePusher]

121. Don't you get it???

Civil Rights are determined by geography and by majority vote. :woohoo:

That worked out fine 150 years ago, didn't it? :applause:




:sarcasm: , for the impaired...

[Hoyt]

122. Guns in public aren't a "civil right" anymore than spear guns, bombs, machetes, clubs, etc., are.

[X_Digger]

136. Keep.. *and bear*..

You're herping the derp hard these days.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. I don't care what you think of me.

[Hoyt]

72. I think families have right to eat/shop without guns, machetes or bombs.

[eqfan592]

77. First, guns and machetes are not bombs.

So stop attempting to equate them as it only serves to make you look extremely foolish. Secondly, it seems that the law would disagree with you. My carrying is extremely unlikely to do any harm to any families I may come across in my day to day activities, but it very well may aid me in defending myself, or even possibly them depending on the situation.

[Hoyt]

90. The are apparatus carried to kill people, whether offensively or supposedly defensively.

Loughner and Laffer killed more people with their handguns than most bombs (non-war).

[spin]

132. So you oppose legitimate self defense?

If a person decided to attack you with every intention of seriously hurting or killing you, you would allow him to do what he would without resisting?

I don't really know you but I feel that your life or health is valuable. I can only hope that if you ever find yourself in a threatening situation that you are lucky enough or skillful enough to avoid serious injury or worse.

I would miss our debates. We may disagree but I enjoy the back and forth.

[PavePusher]

116. Actually, they do have that right.

They can chose not to carry those items at any time, and to eat whereever it is legal for them to do so. I fail to understand what H is so worked up over. Everything he wants is currently available... :shrug: :evilgrin:

[spin]

93. Out of curiosity do you check out all the patrons in a restaurant when you dine out ...

and try to determine if they are carrying concealed?

If you do, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

By the way you would never suspect that if you were sitting at a table beside my daughter, my son in law and myself that we were all armed.

My son in law would be carrying his .380 Ruger LCP, my daughter would have her .22 Magnum S&W 351PD revolver and I would be carrying my .38+P S&W Model 642 snub nosed revolver.


Ruger LCP


S&W Model 351PD


S&W Model 642

I hope I didn't ruin your plans to eat out.

[Common Sense Party]

112. "Most" people? Where do you see that "most" people prefer

that CCW holders leave their guns at home? You have a citation, a poll, something other than YOUR feelings?

You are NOT "most people".

[petronius]

35. Some vested interests would like us to believe that it's our patriotic duty to shop

everywhere and often, but no - people are free to (not) shop wherever they choose for whatever reason. I imagine we all have a somewhat complicated hierarchy of places we patronize and places we avoid.

IMO, however, there is a common-courtesy obligation to be polite if one chooses to call and express displeasure about something...

[eqfan592]

41. Agree. nt

[arikara]

61. I honestly don't understand the purpose of packing around a gun

while you are shopping unless you are either a cop or a crook.

[TPaine7]

62. That's ok. I don't understand the purpose of many things people do,

while still respecting their right to do them.

Of course you realize that sometimes ordinary civilians are robbed in stores and that sometimes all the witnesses are herded into a back room and killed in order to ensure that they don't testify, right?

Can you imagine a woman being stalked by a nut who might want to have a gun on her person at all times? Stalkers can easily enter stores, just like anyone else.

I can imagine a purpose for carrying a concealed gun, even for those who aren't cops or crooks. If you can't, that's OK.

[ileus]

67. or trying to avoid being a crooks next victim...

[Hoyt]

74. You won't find the answer here, other than irrational fears and peculiar personalities.

[eqfan592]

80. Lol, I think this should be your tag line from now on Hoyt.

It fits you perfectly. ;)

[Hoyt]

85. Sorry, I used it first to describe you folks. You'll have to come up with something else.

[ileus]

64. Why would any business deny someone of the most basic of human rights.

They can't sell product to someone they helped kill by enabling an anit-gun mentality. Help keep your customers, visitors, friend, and family alive...welcome their safety devices with open arms.

[Hoyt]

75. "Most basic human right" -- you guys crack me up.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

82. The ability & access to the means of defending your life and freedom are not a basic human rights?

well, I suppose people are entitled to even stupid opinions... :crazy:

[Bold Lib]

91. Self defense IS a basic human right. It is laughable to say otherwise that

it is not a basic human right to self preservation.

[Hoyt]

94. To the Neanderthal man, maybe. In the 21st Century, not so much.

[Bold Lib]

96. So you actually contend that it is not a basic human right to self preservation?

You would meekly roll over for a rapist, allow yourself to be beaten unconscious/to death and never fight back out of a desire for self preservation? Like I've said before, what you are writing here is saying much more about you than what you are actually writing. Very sad for you, and any that rely on you for their welfare/protection.

[Hoyt]

103. Who the F is threatening you to the point that "self-preservation" clouds your vision.

[TPaine7]

108. Why is the sky blue? You're not the only one who can ask irrelevant questions.

Whether or not someone is threatening a poster at the moment is beside any legitimate point at issue.

[Bold Lib]

124. Nice deflection, guess I'll have to restate and see if you answer it this time.

So you actually contend that it is not a basic human right to self preservation?

You would meekly roll over for a rapist, allow yourself to be beaten unconscious/to death and never fight back out of a desire for self preservation? Like I've said before, what you are writing here is saying much more about you than what you are actually writing. Very sad for you, and any that rely on you for their welfare/protection.

[TPaine7]

107. You are apparently conflating the frequency of the exercise of a right with it's importance. n/t

[PavePusher]

117. WOW. Stalin just called, he wants his fucking meme back. n/t

[ileus]

106. You have to remain alive before anything else matters.

[one-eyed fat man]

119. If self-defense

and self preservation were not the most ingrained of instincts in any living organism, what is?

Even you exhibit it. You want everyone to leave their weapons at home so you feel safer. You are gleefully willing to accept the lawless will not comply and hope or assume your orbits don't cross. A passive defense, like coloration in prey animals that helps them to avoid detection.

Others choose to equip themselves to counter an attack. You are like sheep wanting to de-fang the sheepdog because wolves bite.

[Bold Lib]

65. A person as every right to take their business to a place that is in line with their

personal philosophy. OR, to make sure NOT to take their business to a place that is apposed to their personal philosophy.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

79. Wow, ok...

...so business owners who don't disallow concealed carry in their business are significantly more likely to be tbaggers in your opinion? VERY interesting....

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

86. Look us statistics (that you guys are so fond of quoting) -- gunners are predominantly right wing.

Hence, the "cling to their guns . . . . . ." truthful comment by our Democratic President.

[Bold Lib]

89. Cite please. And again with inflammatory rhetoric. And yet not a single

response to the OP. As I said. This says much more about you than anything else.

I'd be very curious to see you "statistics", if you bother to provide them that is.

[spin]

100. That may be due to the fact that many large urban areas such as New York City ...

Chicago, Los Angeles and San Fransisco which are predominately left wing have laws which make gun ownership and concealed carry far more difficult and expensive than other areas. Cities which tend to be less liberal have far less restrictive gun laws.

If a person lives in an area where few honest citizens can afford the time and hassles involved in owning firearms and where the criminal element commonly uses firearms to rob, rape and pillage he may well have a very negative view of guns. However, if the individual lives in an area where gun ownership is common and many of his co-workers and friends own firearms and a number have concealed carry permits, his views on gun ownership will quite possibly be more favorable.

Obama came from Chicago which is one of the most anti-gun cities in our nation where criminal gangs run wild and numerous gun tragedies occur. How many honest gun owners did he know in Chicago. It is not at all surprising that he would make a statement saying that gun owners "cling to their guns."

A politician from Chicago who was a strong supporter of gun ownership would have a hard time getting elected chief dog catcher and absolutely NO chance of becoming a Senator from Illinois.

And yet Obama as President has not proven to be anti-gun by any means. He does say that he would like to see the NICS background check system improved and I agree with him.

Obama eyes 'common sense' US gun control

(AFP) – Mar 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says it's time for US lawmakers to tackle the divisive issue of gun control in hopes of preventing tragedies like the Tucson shooting spree that killed six people.

In an opinion column published Sunday in the Arizona Daily Star, the main Tucson newspaper, Obama argued that improving the system of background checks on gun purchasers should be the first "common sense" step that neither side of the gun debate should oppose.

"I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides," Obama wrote in a rare public commentary on the gun control issue.

"However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way" to make the nation "a safer, stronger place."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gYDgVtROj8d0l867R5RhqFJ_ajHw?docId=CNG.7746b850479d38aba7d8729502fa5036.1c1

[gejohnston]

109. right wing and conservative are too different things. Right wing is reactionary

while conservative is just that.

[Hoyt]

113. All the same to me, but I'm sure they appreciate your defense of their positions.

[gejohnston]

123. positions like what?

You don't do nuance well do you? Something you have in common with right wingers.

[one-eyed fat man]

120. ....and a bit of backpedaling?

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage.

Who was the right winger that said that?

[Bold Lib]

125. Me, me, me. I know, I know, I know.

But I'm curious if "he" knows, so I won't give it away.

[oneshooter]

130. He won't answer as it does not collaborate with his view of the world. n/t

[Bold Lib]

131. I know. Just like every time he gets painted into a corner. He runs away.

[oneshooter]

135. "Peeing his pants, and screaming like a little girl" n/t