With statements like this, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that my perception is wrong.
Daniel,
I really don’t intend my statement to show a lack of respect. While I believe the concerns are irrational or emotionally driven, that doesn’t mean they don’t have value or that they aren’t ‘real’ to the person with the concerns.
By irrational (or emotional–which ever term offends you less) I am saying that pass such a rule does nothing to increase the safety of the person who pushes for it. I don’t think this statement is in any way debatable. Clearly we have people commit gun crimes on a regular basis where guns are not allowed, yet the signage and rules do nothing to protect
It can improve the comfort level of people who have these concerns. That is certainly a valid argument, but as I mentioned above, we undoubtedly have members who are made uncomfortable by the presence of homosexual members, Republicans, children, Muslims, etc… Yet we all understand that such ‘discomfort’ is solely the problem of the person who feels it, since the concern is emotionally based. Do you disagree? And if so, where should the line be drawn? Whose discomfort matters and whose doesn’t?
This is a false comparison. Guns are tools, yes. But they are tools that have a very specific purpose. That purpose is taking life. My discomfort begins when there is the possibility of being injured by a careless, uneducated member in possession of a killing tool.
We have many tools in the space that can be deadly, however if I see someone using a lathe unwisely, all I have to do is move. The effective range of a badly handled firearm is not so easily avoidable.
Any of those people in that list can make certain people uncomfortable, but it is not likely that any of them have “BORN TO KILL” tattooed on them from birth. They are also people and not things.
Gun accidents are a real issue, and that is my primary concern. Second, I would like to have a rule framework that can be used to discipline members who decide to open carry a rifle around the space, or are handling weapons in an unreasonable manner inside the space. (generally having them out when not performing maintenance) I thoroughly question the prudence of a person who would do this, but they do exist. This is common sense, but from some of the reactions here, I wouldn’t be surprised if people came out of the woodwork to support that “right”.
2 Likes
This.
While I know it’s against the law, CHL holders are educated, etc., etc., I would be strongly in favor of a ZERO TOLERANCE policy at DMS, as in if you are an asshat with firearms, in addition to any applicable legal ramifications, you would be permanently banned from DMS. This would include pointing, threatening, flaunting it, etc.
Also, if we could post a sign in the lobby that lists some examples of things that are illegal and that we are entitled to call the police if this happens (pointing, threatening, etc.), I believe that would calm some of us down. An issue a member had (until the meeting where it was explained to them) was that said member did not know that it was illegal for someone to verbally threaten with a gun (“you know, I have a gun”). This happened at the old location to this member and nothing was done about it. Now that this member knows this, I think they would be slightly more receptive to guns being allowed.
EDIT: Also, if we do not have a DMS-wide policy, technically individual committees could make up their own, yes? For example, if no policy whatsoever is put in place, could Committee X post a sign saying no firearms?
1 Like
I don’t believe it is a false comparison. Much of the comments from people on this topic have boiled down to the very presence of a visible fire arm makes them uncomfortable. Much like the presence of the categories of people I mentioned above make them uncomfotable.
Yes guns are tools, and the specific kind of gun we are talking about does have a specific purpose–self defence or stopping an attack. Killing is not their intention nor the usual outcome, many folks would be surprised to find that most folks who are shot in first world countries (with associated medical care) do not die. But that is really a non-sequitor.
No one who has a license (and hence is allowed to carry open in Texas) is ‘uneducated’. Class time and demonstration of safe handling is required to obtain the license. But I concur with your basic premise, many of the folks I have seen pass these classes are not people I am comfortable being around. But I haven’t met anyone at the space yet who falls into that category.
I have met people at the space who I avoid being near when they work with certain tools because I fined their procedures risky.
People are far more dangerous then an inanimate object, but in the cases I mentioned there isn’t any more danger then there is in a holstered firearm (which already exist in the space). The issue is the ‘discomfort of some members’ by the sheer presence. Do we address such discomfort?
I believe you misunderstand Texas’ gun laws. Carry, whether concealed or open, basically means that you don’t unholster your weapon in public unless you need to use it, doing so subjects one to brandishing charges. So accidents are essentially impossible. Further, since we already have concealed carry at the space, open carry doesn’t increase the risk of such accidents when compared to what is there now.
The way the law is written on brandishing, even if I were to bring a firearm to the space to work on, it wouldn’t be transported to the space in a holster. If you carry, you don’t remove your gun from the holster in public. Even most of the gun ranges I know of insist that you don’t unholster your carry weapon at the range. A gun to be used at the range is transported in a separate gun case and unloaded.
But lets say we did have a member who removed their gun from the holster at the space. We (and the state) already have rules to deal with behavior problems, we don’t need new ones.
1 Like
Possibly, however I would like some kind of official statement by the board that they will enforce these by permanently banning people from DMS. The board (not just the current iteration) has historically been slow to respond to complaints, except that one where someone came to DMS and said he would arm himself on open house to “protect the members from the powers that be.”
FYI Brooke, many guns are used for other than “killing” - that’s hyperbole or phobia.
I personally have a number firearms, don’t yet have a concealed permit because my pistol is a target type pistol with a long barrel and not easily concealed without a jacket (note: it was not designed for killing, the paper targets are already dead); need a smaller more power weapon for self-defense, haven’t decided on which yet.
I’m against it more on the “Camel’s Nose” theory of first steps. I have no problem and respect a person’s right to be defenseless and a potential victim, but not to make me that way. Personally, I don’t think there are many people that are likely to open carry - I darn sure wouldn’t bring an exposed/open carry firearm into the wood shop because of the crap it would be exposed to.
Also, we may have classes on making form fitted leather holsters in CA - you need the firearm there for shaping it. I would not consider that open carry because you are working on a project, but how would that be interpreted by someone who wanted to be scared by it?
2 Likes
If someone draws their weapon from its holster at the space, they are subject to brandishing charges (especially if another member is ‘concerned’ by it) I would think felony charges are all that is needed to ban a member without additional rules.
Further, the behavior you describe as a problem (ie drawing gun from holster) isn’t a new problem since many guns are already in holsters at the space. The only thing new is that you may see it before it would be drawn.
2 Likes
Wow…the lack of almost any understanding or insight in this comment makes it truly ridiculous.
3 Likes
Again, similar to previous statement, this comment demonstrates a nearly total lack of understanding or insight which makes it ridiculous on it’s face.
2 Likes
I think most would consider this approach very reasonable and workable. Speaking for myself only, while I have no intention of open carrying in general at DMS, I would also be happy signing something to the effect of Brook’s statement as well, e.g. “Don’t be an Asshat while you are open carrying in DMS. All other times it is acceptable (being an Asshat, that is).”
That’s what I use a gun for. What do you think they’re for? Hunting or practicing hunting (target, skeet) is the only thing I’ve ever used a gun for. I don’t have the will or desire to pretend I want to take a human life with one, so I don’t have any use for one in the city.
You can also intimidate someone with one, but that is because its purpose is to kill.
How do you not brandish a rifle? You certainly can’t put it in its ‘holster’ if you’re carrying it. Then the only distinction is pointing it at someone or not pointing it at someone. That is not enough for me.
If someone get’s shot by someone else at DMS, accidentally or intentionally, DMS better have some REALLY GOOD Insurance 
Just sayin’
It never occurred to me that people concealed carry at DMS, but I guess it doesn’t bother me if they do. Doesn’t Bother me if they open carry. but if you’re doing something irresponsible and stupid, don’t get pissed if I step up to you and tell you to put it in your holster, and probably send a nasty email to the board, and then the signs go up.
Look, we can’t even rely on people to sweep up their mess in the wood shop. How can you possibly rely on someone not to break out the ole 44 mag to show the friends the shiny parts?
Just don’t be a dork, keep it holstered.
PS. My brother in law has concealed carried for like 13 years. Not a single time has he had the opportunity to take the weapon out of its hiding spot. I’ve been to the CHL class. Guys, it’s no joke. Don’t even think about taking a gun out of its holster unless you’re about to kill someone.
3 Likes
It seems you do understand, then, that guns have purposes other than the 'very specific purpose of taking [human] life. (slight paraphrase). Including hunting, target/skeet shooting, the reduction of the likelihood of an attack (via open carry), and the stopping of an actual threat or attack (that stopping not necessarily or intentionally being lethal).
If you think of all the guns in the world as = “N”, and the subset of all those guns that have actually killed someone as = “n”, what is your best guess as to what the ratio n/N is? Mine would be something on the order of 1%, which includes armies and war, and that is a likely a large overestimation. Quite the statistic for something that was only intended to kill, don’t you think?
1 Like
The correct term is to stop a threat.
On another note I do accept that if someone is trying to bully with a firearm, it will have to be delt with quickly.
1 Like
You don’t understand what I’m saying at all.
Guns are designed to injure or kill. That is their designed purpose, animals or people. But you don’t fix your car with one. You don’t get from one place to another with one. It doesn’t cure any illnesses.
The threat that it implies (for protection purposes) is inherent in its design.
It is a tool, whose purpose is to kill.
You can choose to refrain from using a tool. But tools are enabling technology. It enables people to kill, and that should be treated with extreme respect.
2 Likes
I do (I think) understand what you are saying; I just disagree with it.
No. Guns are designed to fire bullets. What someone – a person with motives, volition, and intent! – chooses to do with that bullet, or even whether to fire a bullet in the first place, is a different matter. This is NOT a quibble, it is the heart of the matter. If you want to try to make bad intentions illegal or regulate or forbid them, have at it. But to make a (as you so rightly call it) tool the embodiment of such bad intentions, and assuming then that attribution applies universally to all such tools is a fundamental misunderstanding and gross mistake.
2 Likes
This is intentionally daft. Guns were not invented to simply fire bullets. Cars were not invented just to spin their wheels around.
As an enabling technology, I do not want to be around people handling firearms at the space, except in the most limited ways. Tools are sometimes misused. Tools are sometimes put in to the hands of foolish individuals.
I want a rational framework to limit the amount of foolishness that can happen with dangerous items.
5 Likes
Correct. Everyone knows cars were invented to enable drunk people to get behind the wheel and then hit/kill someone. Something needs to be done about this!!
Daft or not, on this we agree. @bscharff has some of the beginning fundamentals for this outlined above.
1 Like
In fact we do. Besides the fact that it’s illegal and being drunk behind the wheel will send you to jail, mandatory car safety standards have been increased to a nearly unbelievable level.
But that’s ignoring the fact that the car was still getting that drunk person somewhere. …which is the metaphysical purpose of a car.
Thank God, let’s make some reasonable gun safety rules and call it a day.
2 Likes