Holy crap did that spin out of control quickly! This started as an interesting article on why legislators are mum about the intent behind a law they created. The final product reads like Mr. Geary had too many espresso shots and just typed up everything that his brain considered to be remotely related to the subject.
"Naturally, then, I understood the act to mean that if I were to be held up at the fair, eager permit-holders would spring to my defense, drawing on the criminal and demanding he surrender on his knees or die in a hail of bullets".
Does you being robbed put anyone's life in imminent danger? Do you feel like the use of deadly force would be justified? Why do you assume that everyone carrying would think that such force would be justified? Why do you consistently portray us a "eager to shoot" when there are no examples of this behavior playing out?
The fundamental flaw in every opinion piece like this is that concealed carry permit holders don't live by the same Run>Hide>Fight mental process as non-carry holders. The reason we carry isn't "fear", it's "more options". Having a firearm gives me better options for places to hide, and better options for ways to fight for my life if the situation escalates to that point. That's it. No vigilante complex. No terror at the thought of walking about in public. No duty to save your possessions from being taken. Just personal options.
I'm not sure of your point. Did any of these events involve any combination of CCP holders/playgrounds/greenways? It is one thing to be calling for increased background checks, or waiting periods, or magazine limits...whatever you believe will reduce deaths due to illegally owned firearms/improperly stored firearms (IMO none of those things will help, but that is a different debate). It is another thing to tell the people who have gone through the most rigorous background check process that the state has that they must be prevented from exercising their rights because of the actions of those others.
"It reinforces the situation in North Carolina of not having control over our cities and towns," Harrison said. "The General Assembly is taking away more of it." One way to interpret this: There are people who want to live their lives by safely participating in a legal activity. We feel like we should have legislative power at the local level to stop that from happening. Now I'm sure CH has the community value that this mindset would be "wrong" if it applied to voting rights, or gay marriage, or any other number of political topics. I hope that the community can also see that it is wrong if applied to CCP holders carrying in public spaces.
"Because unlike sitting next to a smoker where I can choose to get up and leave, I'd have no way of knowing whether the person at the next table might be the very first person to start shooting (for whatever reason) and I just happened to be in the way."
I understand that you have this concern. However, you have never had this knowledge up to this point, and you will not have this knowledge in the future. The only thing that you will know is that nobody who feels an obligation to obey the posted sign is sitting next to you with a gun. If the business cares about your safety, the sign will be accompanied by at least a metal detector at the door, and (possibly) a security presence. At that point, Chris Roc has already warned: "Don't go to parties with metal detetctors..."
I have no problems with business owners posting that guns are not allowed. I will respect that even if I don't think that it gains them anything in terms of safety. I appreciate that at least they now post, as opposed to me risking becoming an accidental felon by walking into a business that I would not otherwise know serves alcohol (A place like Cocoa Cinnamon, for example).
What I don't get are the fears around CCW holders drinking illegally. Prior to OCT 1st, there did not seem to be any concerns that CCW permit holders were breaking the law by coming into the establishment while carrying (which was illegal). Now, suddenly there is a wave of assumption that these people who were obeying the law before, will legally carry in the establishment but decide to illegally consume alcohol. I just don't get that line of thinking.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation