nincomp Wrote:Like LRR, I have no problem with decent, armed, polite people.
I have always had mixed feelings about everyone carrying firearms in crowded places. There have always been people who want to commit suicide in a spectacular way. "Going Postal" is one example. "Suicide by Police" is another. Since they are planning to die anyway, the fact that other people are armed has no deterrent effect. On the other hand, armed citizens may be able to incapacitate the shooter and reduce the number of those injured.
As another example, this time everyone at a crowded sports stadium has an Uzi. One guy who has a violent temper when drunk has had too many beers and suddenly decides to start blazing away. He is likely to kill or injure a bunch of people before being incapacitated. If a number of citizens return fire, it is likely that even more spectators will be hit. The answer to the adage: "know what is behind your target before you shoot" is: "people, lots of them." If this out of control drunk grabs someone to use as a human shield and continues shooting, you will be faced with the classic dilemma of whether to shoot through the hostage to stop the carnage or not.
The angry drunk did not come to the stadium with the intent to shoot people. Nevertheless, he just happened to have access to a firearm when he lost his temper and judgement. If he did not have immediate access to a firearm, he might get into a nasty fistfight, but that is all. Chances are that he would have cooled down and regained his judgement by the time he had left the stadium, walked to his car, retrieved his firearm and walked back to the stadium.
I honestly do know whether 2A rights overrule everything else in these situations.
I consider the above cases to be very different than entering a deserted parking deck after work or walking down a city street at night.
I also believe that it is stupid to have guards who are unable to fire their weapons. Hell, my sister is a guard at a small museum and she carries a revolver.
I think you are making the assumption that a society that would encourage such freedoms would long tolerate people that would be apt to act that way. As though you would flip a switch and all the people that have not lived in a certain way would suddenly choose to.
People act in such a manner precisely because they have not had to worry about the real consequences. It is generational problem that will not be fixed very quickly.
I live in the most redneck part of the country in a state with a preemption law that says as long as it is a publicly funded building, I.e. School, courthouse, airport, etc. they can not restrict peoples right to carry. Where the possibility of a good brawl is as much a part of the occasional night out as is( or was in my case) the chance to take home a stranger, after all we are still a pretty rough town full of cowboys (the real kind) and a bunch of transplants trying to get away from the hell hole they have created. But good people, even the ones who occasionally lose their cool, know when to leave the guns at home. It would only happen once to make them remember.
People often forget that the old saying "an armed society is a polite society" goes both ways. I have been in a situation where people have had serious cause to get a beat down but because I was armed and it didn't warrant them getting shot I just smiled and walked on.