Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumKrogers. Has anyone actually seen a gun nut with a rifle in a Krogers?
Or a Target, Starbuck, or Walmart?
And if you did, what did you do?
I'm, frankly, suspect of any Bloomberg funded mission like this latest one to intimidate Krogers to create a new meaningless policy.
As mayor, he authorized "Stop and Frisk", an unconstitutional policy that disproportionately targeted people of color.
His PR person, Sharon Watts, formerly represented Monsanto. She's a pro and pros are slick, sometimes dishonest.
So, one or two Open Carry gun nuts walk into a Kroger, or maybe the pics are staged, and we're supposed to BOYCOTT them now?
Kroger has 2,640 stores employing more than 310,000 employees, 75% of them are UNION employees.
Here is Krogers' statement on this latest desperate move by Bloomberg Watts, and I think it's solid:
Individual stores remain free to ask anyone to leave and may create, if they like, a policy of no guns for that store.
/rant
Pro Tip-- In case you really think this will make anyone more safe, studies show that most murderous gun nuts will disregard store policies. Just sayin'.
PS, I personally think Open Carry protesters are fools, and do nothing but scare people without purpose. Not sure if they're even legit and put me to mind of James O'Keefe.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)anyone try open-carry here because it's still illegal to. So I couldn't say.
Man! I'm happy I live in California and don't have to deal with this. [URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm blessed that people don't even litter and they pick up their dog poop! Part of that's law and a big part of it's the culture of caring.
And, better still maybe is that my county didn't take any of that military hardware except for some night vision gear.
You can look up your county here for stats on how many aircraft, grenade launchers, assault rifles, and armored personnel vehicles were acquired:
NY Times, "Mapping the Spread of Military Surplus Gear"
Image credit: the Southern California Government GIS User Group
http://socalgis.org/2014/08/21/mapping-the-spread-of-military-surplus-gear/
steelsmith
(59 posts)And man am I happy to live in a state that doesn't try to restrict our constitutional rights. Here in our little bastion of freedom we can carry anything we legally own any way we want, without the nanny state telling us how or when. Happy to say more states are introducing constitutional carry every session, and looks like the restrictionists are loosing ground across the board.
And of course the "California has the most strictest gun safety laws" state also has one of the highest gun crime rates in the country.
On edit, I must say I do not condone the carrying of long guns, even as a form of protest.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)state also has one of the highest gun crime rates in the country. "
Nope. Arizona - that would be your State - is number two outranks California in the list for the deadliest gun States. California didn't even make the Top 20 list.
Wasn't a Democratic Rep shot in the head in your State? And wasn't Arizona in the news again with something about a 9-year-old killing her instructor with an Uzi? Or that shooting at Walmart back in February because of an argument with a Walmart employee?
Yeah. Real bastion of freedom there. Tell that to the victims.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its cute to frame the debate in terms of rates, but looking at a map which shows actual gun violence in a raw form paints quite a different picture:
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)so there's nothing to tell us what it represents. But assuming it's number of gun crimes, as opposed to rates, then it doesn't account at all for the fact that California and Illinois and New York all have very many times as many people as, say, Arizona. Which means that even if the rates of gun violence are lower, the numbers might be higher.
Even so, I notice Arizona seems disproportionately more violent. That is, if the map actually says what I think it does.
beevul
(12,194 posts)See this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172149251
If gun violence is the problem, adjusting it by turning it into a "rate", and then pointing fingers at states with low population (which inflates their rate) and saying they're "more dangerous", ignores the problem.
If you have more gun violence in raw numbers, you have a bigger problem that needs solving, and it will require more resources to combat it, regardless of what excess population might be added in to the numbers that didn't commit any.
Unless the people that didn't do it are the problem too.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)The rates are what they are, and I don't know how ignoring or discarding per capita figures has us arriving at a better sense of reality. Neither do I see how pointing out rates of crime per capita, as opposed to simple raw numbers, "ignores the problem."
Take the rates of reported rapes, for example. If you look at simple aggregate figures, you'd think Alaska is about the safest place a woman could be. In fact, it has about the highest rate of reported rapes in the country.
http://www.refinery29.com/2014/02/61955/rape-statistics-united-states
The fact that it has a population smaller than some boroughs of New York City doesn't make it any safer for women and girls, or belie what that rate tells us about the incidence of sexual violence there. To pretend that there isn't a problem in Alaska because there aren't as many people there doesn't seem helpful at all.
As for your last two paragraphs, I'm not sure what you're driving at. Yes, the more people you have committing a crime, chances are the more resources you'll need to combat it. And so....
As it is, gun violence is a national problem requiring a national answer. How else will we ever close down the Iron Pipeline?
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)A friend of mine lived in Keewatin MN. Twelve years ago the was a double murder two houses away from him. I woyld tease him about his dangerous city.
Their homicide rate that year was about 200 per 100,000; over ten times that of New Orleans that year.
It does not consider those are the only murders in the last four decades.
Both total deaths and murder rates can be used to give the wrong idea of crime, if taken out of context. Both sides will do so to promote their agenda. Some groups do it more than others. The VPC is infamous for cherry picking numbers or confusing rate and total numbers in their "fact sheets"
I live near a small town we'll just call bumfuck, for sake of discussion.
"Bumfuck" has a real, factual and true population of 34 people.
If a single person in "Bumfuck" commits violence with a gun, thats 1 in 34.
Thats a RATE of 2941 per 100k. If one were to look ONLY at that rate, it would seem bumfuck has a gun violence epidemic of monumental proportions on their hands, wouldn't it? Gee, is there something in their water or what?
What the usual suspects do, is to note places like Montana and other states/places with a small population, and then use a rate based on that small population.
On the other side of the coin, a larger population example of say 20 million, with the same rate, would have 1188200 hypothetical instances. For sake of discussion, well call it "megaville".
So say this hypothetical city of megaville DOES have a gun violence epidemic. Say 100000 commit violence with guns. Thats 200 per 100k. A rate roughly 14.5 times lower than Bumfuck. Without looking at the exact numbers, it sure looks like bumfuck has a huge problem on their hands, compared to megaville, doesnt it?
Ones sense of reality, isn't (or shouldn't be) aimed at "better or worse", it should be aimed at accurate and representative of reality. "Rates" applied to an entire state, give the impression that the problem exists equally in the entire state.
You and I both know that just isn't the case.
Maybe a graphic representation will help. Heres a typical rate map...and keep in mind, the rates generally don't change a lot year to year:
Now compare "rate" to actual gun violence" map:
They seem quite contradictory to me. Montana and Wyoming more dangerous than Illinois?
"the iron pipeline".
Brady campaign talking point. Dismissed with the same zeal as an nra talking point.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22iron+pipeline%22+brady
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)with open-carry-ninnies who need to show off their firearms in order to feel safe - or feel like a man. The latter, is of course, my personal opinion.
I wonder if they'd be just as lax with their position about open-carry were a group of big Black guys with semi-automatics came marching in their local Krogers or Target or Walmart - or even their local McD's for a Happy Meal. What do you think?
That map of yours says nothing other than to show pretty mauve and wine-red colors in each State.
But I've given you the list from a pretty reliable site where you can read the stats for each State, and that despite what you're trying so hard to defend (or distract from), Arizona is still the State with the second most gun-deaths in the nation. Aren't you proud.
beevul
(12,194 posts)They're both your opinion. Nothing more.
Why don't you ask them? As for me, wouldn't bother me, but then, lawful behavior combined with the presence of a firearm, has never bothered me regardless of who engages in it.
How about you? Do you think theres something wrong with "big Black guys" lawfully carrying semi-automatic weapons?
Lol. Now I get to demonstrate for you and the entire world, that you don't even understand the subject matter you yourself are trying to lean on to support your own argument. You were arguing rates, and you didn't even know it. Your link leads to a page, that in the upper right hand corner says "#2, Arizona Gun deaths per 100,000: 15". Heres a hint Einstein: if it says "per 100,000" that's a RATE. Not a static number of gun deaths.
You said you weren't arguing rates. Bzzzt. You were wrong. You were arguing rates, you just didn't know it. Try thinking for yourself next time, instead of regurgitating things you see but clearly don't understand.
Now, on to the other blatantly incorrect fact you were trying to peddle, and I'll underline it so that there can be no mistake what I'm referring to:
The latest numbers I've found, are from 2010, and AZ wasn't even in the top 15. They may have the second highest "rate", but they ranked number 16 in numbers for murders. Murders are approximately half of all gun deaths, so all things being equal, adding suicides to the mix would change nothing, except to add far greater raw numbers to high population states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
So yeah, AZ ranks 16th in gun deaths, but NO, it does not have the second most gun deaths. It doesn't even have 1/5 of the most gun deaths as states go. But turn it into a rate and boy howdy, all the sudden AZ is the second most dangerous place around.
Which was entirely my point. I appreciate you assisting me in making it.
You said "Arizona is still the State with the second most gun-deaths in the nation." You weren't just wrong, you were wrong by a factor greater than 5. Aren't You proud?
randys1
(16,286 posts)out insane and childish gun laws.
That anyone at anytime could pull out a war killing machine and open fire on them and their family, that being in CA may be safer than other places.
I think there is a website that shows you where in America is the least safe and the most safe.
Yeah, guns are , oh wait, I am in the gun forum
Guns are wonderful
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)when they say "gun deaths" they are including suicides. In terms of gun murders, California and Arizona are about the same, although Arizona has slightly more overall murders.
Of course, there is DC with even stricter laws that have five times the murder rate of either state.
You are most safe in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. You are least safe in DC and NOLA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)come to the USA just to be able to fire weapons. We take our German students to the range all the time.
Tourists from Australia, Europe or Asia, where civilians are barred from many types of guns, long to indulge in the quintessentially American right to bear arms.
"People have a fascination with guns," said Cohen, who is from New Zealand and estimates about 90 percent of his customers are tourists. "They see guns as a big part of American culture, and they want to experience American culture."
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/08/28/gun-tourism-grows-in-popularity-in-recent-years
You might be more comfortable posting here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262 but it is very slow as they require a "safe haven" to be protected from any diolog that goes against their thoughts.
This group at least allows differing viewpoints and even allows people with viewpoints like you to post and not be blocked.
Arkansas Granny
(31,484 posts)a weapon, I would immediately abandon my basket and leave the store. I would also call the store management and tell them why I left and wouldn't go back until store policy was changed to not allow open carry on premises. How am I to know which weapon carrying customer is a good guy or a bad guy? Did I mention the possibility of a weapon being accidentally discharged?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)What Bloomberg is pushing is the very definition of Nanny state, consistent with his policies on sodas and fries and tobacco...
...and black people walking the streets of NYC looking black.
I wish I was kidding about that part.
The two ways to achieve a goal are through local individual and community effort, or through PR campaigns of intimidation that seek to impose a rule everywhere.
If a neighborhood has no pride, than all the laws in the world won't stop people from littering.
It's hard to build pride but once you do, it's there forever. Authoritarian laws and store policies won't really make much difference, IMO.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)they disapprove of a corporate policy equate to "a nanny state?" (The term "nanny state" BTW, is a favorite of George Will's--it's practically a registered trademark for him, so it's odd to see it tossed around here).
"If a neighborhood has no pride, then all the laws in the world won't stop people from littering."
Then why have any laws at all? Why not just leave it all up to "neighborhood pride" and "local individual effort?"
I happen to think good laws do make a difference. This was demonstrated to me only a few minutes ago, when I wasn't killed driving through an intersection because other drivers felt compelled to stop for a red light. Or are traffic laws also useless, without "neighborhood pride"?
It isn't "neighborhood pride" that's the main issue, it's the disparity of resources spent in various communities, including those devoted to picking up garbage and enforcing litter laws.
Anyway, I have no problem with people urging other people to boycott or express displeasure at this or that corporate policy. And yes, a corporate policy that says skateboards are more dangerous than loaded guns is a policy with which I would have serious questions.
BTW, isn't the corporate injunction against carrying a skateboard into a store also, by your definition, an instance of "the nanny state?" Or are corporate strictures against public behavior on private premises objectionable only when they relate to guns?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Who's George Will?
And what is the satisfaction in telling people thousands of miles away from you what and what not to do.
Thanks in advance for staying out of others business.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)It's a short hand term demonstrating utter contempt for those with whom you disagree.
Gun violence and gun culture are my business. I've had one good friend and one close relative killed by firearm.
Thanks in advance for not making the usual snide gunner remark about these losses.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)has any firearms owner on DU made one? What makes you think that NYC_SKP would?
I am glad you do not like the gun nut label, maybe others here should think the same way.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)I mentioned how gun violence IS my business, since I've been personally impacted.
To elaborate: a friend of mine bled to death after being shot in the throat during a mugging.
A family member was killed by a hunter who mistook him for a deer.
But the response below is, basically, hey, it could have been a machete. What's the diff?
Seems pretty snide to me, though, to be fair, maybe it's sarcasm?
Also, re the comment "mind your own business"--it's the open carry fanatics who are making it the public's business by indulging in their petulant little demonstrations. If these open carry folks weren't pushing their guns into our faces, I doubt the issue would have come up at all.
I don't like labels in general. They tend to short cut any serious thinking or discussion that might happen. As does a reflexive defense of all and any gun owners, no matter how irresponsible.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but killed by a firearm? What does gun culture have to do with gun violence? Most gun violence comes from gang culture.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)A gun in a public space is a threat.
Arkansas Granny
(31,484 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)you that no law has been broken and that they will not be sending a police officer. If a single person makes too many of these open carry calls to 911, they may very well find themselves in trouble with the police.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)But considering how over bearing the police have been lately you should be aware of the consequences of that call.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cops-shoot-and-kill-man-holding-toy-gun-walmart
grasswire
(50,130 posts)a couple of years ago. An argument at the checkout. I think it was concealed, but what's the difference, ultimately?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Something that really makes a difference.
Of course, it's highly unlikely that Bloomberg or Watts would come near either topic.
Talk about a distraction.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The OC guys demonstrated during SXSW, a few blks from where 4 people were mowed down and killeed by a drunk fleeing police. One event was a classic Texas tourist attraction; the other mass-murder as conventionally defined. I haven't witnessed either.
If Texas passes open-carry of hand guns, the OC of long guns will go away. I don't favor OC of either, but those are the politics here.
840high
(17,196 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)in Minnesota is to first have a CCW license. I think it is against the law to open carry a handgun in Minnesota, exept when in the field hunting.
I have never seen anyone open carry in any store or public space. Personally, I do not think open carry is a positive thing for RKBA.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The Moms effort is just disgusting given the track record of the parties involved.
But I agree, I grew up in parts where a holstered six-shooter wasn't going to offend anyone.
But never, except in a gun shop or maybe a retail shop in a hunting area, would one walk around with a long gun.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Lots of concealed carriers here in the coastal bend.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I don't mind OC, just remember dress good, be polite and friendly as usual.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...and maybe actually get what they claim they want.
Or they could track down and shame the carrier.
But of course it's not about making a difference in any particular store for any particular set of people.
It's an organized effort to stigmatize all things gun, to intimidate one large retailer after another to bend to their will.
I salute those chains who've remained steadfast in their no-policy policy, or kept it very simple and not kissed up to Bloomberg.
Eagle_Eye
(1,439 posts)What do they look like?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)'
This guy:
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...it that/he.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)'
He was a Bloomberg, er, I mean a Breitbart sponsored shill who dressed up as a pimp and went to different ACORN offices to try to get them on tape saying embarrassing things and has gone on to do other shitty things.
James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative activist who has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters with public figures and workers in a variety of organizations, purportedly showing abusive or alleged illegal behavior by representatives of those organizations. He gained national attention for his release of video recordings of workers at ACORN offices in 2009, his arrest in early 2010 at the office of Senator Mary Landrieu in a failed attempt to record staff conversations, and release of videos of NPR executives in 2011. California prosecutors found that O'Keefe selectively and heavily edited the ACORN raw footage.[1][2][3] Despite his tactics James O'Keefe's productions have been described by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes as a political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe
See his website, Project Veritas: https://www.projectveritas.com/home/
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Not once and I live where most trucks have gun racks.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Maybe he's just a regular nut.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Maybe he's not a nut of any kind.
I honestly think that the nuts seen on the Internet are true nutty protestors or they are plants.
The handful of people I've ever seen in 57 years of life open carrying have not worried me, they were holstered pistols, legal, in Angels Camp and Tracy, CA, and a few other places.
I think the protestors are a fluke, pay them no attention and they'll go away.