Taking Concealed Carry to the next level?

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/...ml?intcmp=hpff

[Doc]

Cool idea but not original. Maxwell smart had a shoe phone



And of course I have my gun phone case



but its not nearly as cool as shawns phone!

[suncat05]

I saw this recently, I think on FB.

We occasionally get intel on stuff like this, like new ways to hide handcuff keys, finger guns hidden in belt buckles, that kind of stuff.

My friends, we live in dangerous times now.

[Darrell KSR]

That's pretty cool, and something I don't really like to see. As someone who walks through courtroom doors, through metal detectors into rooms where suncat05 and those like him protect us all, I hate the idea that someone might drop that into a box with other personal items, skipping the metal detector, and have a loaded weapon in there.

I don't know if I ever told this story or not, but I was in college, working at Ouachita National Bank, in Monroe, Louisiana, in the Trust Department. One of my co-workers was a sweet young lady (older than me, but I was a baby) who was going through a divorce, but was seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, as her divorce was just about final. She was going one day to court for the final judgment, and was taking off work that day. I remember her talking about it, and she was so happy it was about over.

It was. She exited the courthouse the next day, and was gunned down and killed on the courtroom steps by her (at that point) ex-husband.

The next time I saw her was her dead body at her funeral.

This was sometime around 1979-80. Maybe 1981. You never forget things like that. I remember it being hot, and going to her church for the funeral. It was overflowing, literally with people standing outside the church, with the windows raised up (wasn't air conditioned), and so those outside could see and hear.

Her co-employees were seated near the casket. In the program--which I had never seen before--there was a place for a "representative of Ouachita National Bank" to speak. I assumed they had someone to do it. When the time came, they asked me to speak in front of hundreds of people. Now, there were six white people in the church--all of Johnni's co-workers. I was scared to death, about 19-20 years old. Fortunately, my "big boss," Mr. Staab, who must've been about 60 then, saw and overheard, and he offered to speak instead.

You don't forget things like that, ever.

Sweet lady. May she rest in peace.

Suncat, stay ever vigilant, and keep going home to that wife of yours, and telling us stories about your daughter.

[Doc]

I always find it interesting that police officers and lawyers don't want guns in THEIR workplace but are fine with them in others. This is just one of those random observations I make from time to time.

[Darrell KSR]

Let's see if I can redo this without offending anyone. Often that's difficult. I found the "random observation" personally a little insulting to me, and indicative that you didn't understand the levels at play.

There's an implication in your post that your random observation illustrates an inconsistency in logic. That's incorrect, and flawed.

In a perfect world I do not want any guns in any workplace. I'd be much happier were that the case. I don't want them anywhere. So you started with a logical fallacy with your random observation.

Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world. So if there are guns that can be carried by bad guys, I think it's better that good guys have the ability to protect themselves and their families.

In a setting where a metal detector prohibits good guys from being able to protect themselves and their familes, then it is abhorrent to think of a gun being disguised as a cell phone. Or a bomb being disguised as a key chain, or anything of the sort. It's a protected environment, for good reasons, but you're allowing a bad guy to violate the law and expose loved ones to danger.

See the distinction there? If you don't, I apologize for my lack of clarity in making it, but it's logically consistent.

Now, there's a second important level you aren't contemplating as well.

There are some environments that are particularly susceptible to enhanced emotions. A courtroom. A bar. A soccer match in Venezuela. A Kentucky - Louisville basketball game.

Do I think that guns should be allowed in any of these? Not at all.

So it's not "my workplace" that's the issue; it's the bifurcated issues of specific exposure (due to the prohibitions involved) and the environment that are the issue.

I hope you didn't find that nearly as insulting as I found your post to me.

[suncat05]

I strive to stay safe Darrell. I am too damn close to retirement to not make it.

Doc, it all depends on the circumstances. Other officers, even if off-duty, yes, I want them armed, because they may be the one to save my bacon if I get in a jam. Now, if they are the defendant or the respondent in a court action, they are not getting into my courtroom with a loaded gun. That is just how that works. Matter of fact, we had one of our guys in an injunction hearing last week against his soon to be ex-wife over their juvenile son. He was seeking the injunction against her because she had allegedly smacked the boy in the face with an ice tray, and then called him to come get the boy because she couldn't take it anymore. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Anyway, I called him beforehand and told him not to come to court in uniform, and when he came to court that I was going to hold his handgun in a lock box until court was over and she was gone. And that is exactly what happened. After court was over and she was gone, I gave him his gun back.
That is the only way that works in my courtroom. Period. I am not having the Judge, or a clerk, or my partner or myself getting shot. But you can put money on it that if I get shot, I am not going to hell alone!

It's all predicated on past histories of the participants, current situations, and other factors that play into this. And you're not wrong Doc, it's know the terrain you're in, as it were.

[CitizenBBN]

I always find it interesting that police officers and lawyers don't want guns in THEIR workplace but are fine with them in others. This is just one of those random observations I make from time to time.

not sure where to start with that kind of thinking Doc. Don't think I will this time.

[Doc]

Let's see if I can redo this without offending anyone. Often that's difficult. I found the "random observation" personally a little insulting to me, and indicative that you didn't understand the levels at play.

There's an implication in your post that your random observation illustrates an inconsistency in logic. That's incorrect, and flawed.

In a perfect world I do not want any guns in any workplace. I'd be much happier were that the case. I don't want them anywhere. So you started with a logical fallacy with your random observation.

Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world. So if there are guns that can be carried by bad guys, I think it's better that good guys have the ability to protect themselves and their families.

In a setting where a metal detector prohibits good guys from being able to protect themselves and their familes, then it is abhorrent to think of a gun being disguised as a cell phone. Or a bomb being disguised as a key chain, or anything of the sort. It's a protected environment, for good reasons, but you're allowing a bad guy to violate the law and expose loved ones to danger.

See the distinction there? If you don't, I apologize for my lack of clarity in making it, but it's logically consistent.

Now, there's a second important level you aren't contemplating as well.

There are some environments that are particularly susceptible to enhanced emotions. A courtroom. A bar. A soccer match in Venezuela. A Kentucky - Louisville basketball game.

Do I think that guns should be allowed in any of these? Not at all.

So it's not "my workplace" that's the issue; it's the bifurcated issues of specific exposure (due to the prohibitions involved) and the environment that are the issue.

I hope you didn't find that nearly as insulting as I found your post to me.

I'm sorry you found my post insulting. It was not intended to be. Were it I'd have much more clear. The fact you took it as an insult, I deeply apologize for that.

Your first point was not relevant to my comment. A camouflaged gun is an idiotic idea, almost as dumb as the phone that looks like a gun. The ideas are so stupid they barely warrants comment (not your comment being stupid, the idea of making such a product is stupid).

I do understand the difference. I hope you realize I'm not that dumb. Much has been made 1) that guns make EVERYBODY saver and 2) we are responsible for are own safety, so much to the point that it was suggested that the world would be safer if everybody was armed. I guess I could take offense every time these suggestions are offered by pro-gun people but I choose not to. Rather I look to inconsistencies. I agree 100% that guns have no place in courtroom, or a sport arena. Interesting, if you recall I used the sports arena and bars arguments in the past when discussing why all folks should not be armed. But I also recall a thread where an individual witnessed a man putting a gun in his jacket before walking into a Walmart (?) and when tackled most gun advocates felt the attackee had the right to shoot the attacker because the attackee had a concealed weapon permit. Now here is where I see the conundrum and the area where you might be offended. You're OK being safe in your workplace because joe off the street can't carry his handgun into the courthouse. I'm cool with that but what about the guy who works at Walmart, or the shopper at Walmart? Are thy are not offered the same sense of protection? See I selfishly don't think guns belong is a Walmart or for that matter a veterinarians office either. The courthouse is stocked with policemen, many with guns....Walmart or a vet clinic not so much. Now if the argument is "guns make us safer", so be it. Is it a false argument? There is the debate.

Most gun advocates tend to be very rigid in their talking points (in my opinion) yet are less rigid when it affects them. Most are fine with somebody taking a gun to a political rally and wearing it on their hip because its that persons right (yes, I remember that thread too) yet seem less rigid when its something affecting them personally. You may not be that way so that's not directed at you. That is why it was a "random observation".

[Doc]

I want to add to be clear......I'm not saying we should have guns in court rooms. The exact opposite. Anybody who suggests I'm saying we should missed my point. I guess I assumed that people would understand that. When was the last time I argued that folks should have guns? So in actuality I really should not have responded as I did because I fell into the trap, my bad (I realized after I posted). The argument is not should guns be in courtroom, sports arena, bars, Venezuelian soccer matches, etc......

So I'll simplify and put it in a single sentence.

Gun advocates seem to believe that folks being armed is a good thing 100% of the time EXCEPT when it endangers them. At least that is how I see it. This is the observation that I have made of them in general, not anybody specifically*


*stated so as not to offend anybody

[suncat05]

Doc, I understood what you meant. We've discussed this many times, so I understand your thoughts.

And sometimes, with written words, and given our different environments and situations, it can be difficult for some of us to express ourselves as clearly as we would like to. That's just a fact of life. And I am as guilty of meaning one thing and saying something different and absolutely botching the whole thing up and then having everybody ticked off.

So, if what I said seemed not understandable, my apologies.

[CitizenBBN]

I want to add to be clear......I'm not saying we should have guns in court rooms. The exact opposite. Anybody who suggests I'm saying we should missed my point. I guess I assumed that people would understand that. When was the last time I argued that folks should have guns? So in actuality I really should not have responded as I did because I fell into the trap, my bad (I realized after I posted). The argument is not should guns be in courtroom, sports arena, bars, Venezuelian soccer matches, etc......

So I'll simplify and put it in a single sentence.

Gun advocates seem to believe that folks being armed is a good thing 100% of the time EXCEPT when it endangers them. At least that is how I see it. This is the observation that I have made of them in general, not anybody specifically*


*stated so as not to offend anybody

The problem with your observation is that it doesn't address the real truth of how gun advocates and carry advocates think. That's OK, you aren't one and don't think the same way.

here's their real view, which is masked as yours: that if a location cannot insure the security of themselves and their families then it falls on them to provide for their own security and they should not be denied the right to defend themselves if put in that situation.

That's a key difference, and why gun advocates dont' call for guns in court rooms. B/c in court houses we have serious security designed to provide for everyone's safety.

If an office or a school or a sporting complex "bans guns" but does nothing more than put up a sign saying no guns allowed, they have not only not provided for anyone's safety, they have actually raised the level of security risk for those coming to that location.

That's the problem. Not that we want guns "everywhere", but that we want to be able to provide for our own self defense if we're in a place that doesn't do so itself.

So it's not inconsistent or selfish or anything else. As Darrell said, I'd be fine with having a gun ban if we could guarantee I don't get mugged, but I know that's impossible at a macro level. But is it possible at a sporting event or courthouse? Well not 100% but it's far more likely with proper security and effort.

And in fact, the intrusion necessary to maintain that security really is only warranted at certain key location. Courthouses are historically exposed to violent offenders, and there is a long sad history of such incidents, thus we decide that's a key target and we need to endure more intrusion and more expense to increase security.

We can't put scanners and guards at every pizza joint, so for the rest of the time we need to maintain our own security and do so by being armed. but key targets need to have that investment.

That's why I've said since the debate started here that I'm fine with banning guns for average folks in schools, but ONLY If those schools are hardened and security raised to the point that they are properly providing defense for people and making the school an unlikely target for lunatics. But if all they're going to do is put up some signs then no, let's get every law abiding person we can carrying there so we can stop any problems as soon as they start, and many before they start.

The only real hypocrisy in the gun debate is the Hollywood elites who whine about gun violence while making movies that glamorize gun violence, and politicians who want to ban me from having a gun while they have armed guards around them 24/7.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW it's one of my issues with Rupp. They ban guns, but their only security is they make you take your jacket off and they will pat it down. that's it.

You know how much firepower you could get past them? I think with a little effort you could get an Uzi past these guys, certainly multiple handguns.

Also they are unready for an external attack, a lunatic who just rushes up to the building shooting. At least in the building they are. Fortunately the police do the traffic, so there are a whole lot of officers very close, but few if any armed offices at the entry points.

TSA and airports also failed badly at least till we got the body scanners. Even then the tests of their security have shown that undercover agents have been able to get past them readily with weapons.

[Doc]

My third and final post in the thread as it seems I've offended enough folks

I see this much like the criticism that is often flung at leftist anti-gun folk or "the green mob". When celebrities lecture about the evils of an armed society then exit the stage surrounded by an armed entourage of security its a case of whats good for you but make an exception for me because my circumstances are unique. NOTE, THEY VERY WELL MAY BE. Ditto when Al Gore or some other preaches about the evils of our carbon foot print while touring the nation in a caravan of Cadillac Escalades that average 9 mpg. I comment on the inconsistency of those arguments just like everybody else on this board but when somebody on here does it suddenly its time to be offended? Unfortunately some fail to see that. It wasn't a statement that we should allow guns in courtrooms but of course I'll get that lecture 3 times, and I should note I'm waiting for a few more because I'm a simpleton that does not realize that there are bad people in court houses. Usually it take 5 or 6 explanations to get something that complex across. Of course that wasn't my point but I'll play along.

[CitizenBBN]

Doc, you didn't offend me. You're just treating the topic too simplistically to see that the position is in fact completely consistent, b/c the views of those who carry aren't anchored in the carrying of guns per se but rather in the need for security and self defense.

If that security could be provided by giant steel alien robots like in The Day the Earth Stood Still then great, we can get rid of carrying of guns and go about our lives. That would be AWESOME.

but to the extend that isn't possible currently, we need to be able to carry our security and self defense with us so we can be ready and also deter those who would threaten our security.

When you look at it through that lens then it's not that lawyers and cops are being hypocritical at all. It's far more consistent b/c it says "we need security" and if we're in a place that has it great, and if not then we need to bring our own.

That's in contrast to the hollywood airhead who says they only need security for themselves b/c of their profile. If you count how many Hollywood stars are mugged or attacked or robbed a year compared to how many Joe and Jane Smiths are then it's clear Joe Average deserves to be protected as well, which is why their view is both hypocritical and elitist.

But I wasn't offended. I just ache a bit at the idea that wanting security is seen as hypocritical if the person suggests that different measures be used in different places.

[ShoesSwayedBlue]

Sure is going to be interesting to see if the petition to allow concealed carry at the RNC goes through, especially if it ends up being contested, which sure looks probable.