Concealed Carry on The Course

[ditchparrot19]

Wrong. The NYT is one of the few publications left in the world that actually has journalists on staff and investigates their pieces to a very high degree. They don't rely on AP or Reuters for all their investigative pieces because they don't trust the source material. The idea that they are extremely liberal is a canard put out there by competing right wing publications because those people don't have the same investigative integrity and they get almost all their information from other sources.

One of the few times the NYT was caught with their pants down it was because of Judith Miller, who was a mouthpiece for the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush White House. That's a liberal agenda?

End of rant. I have no comment about the thread subject because it is just another polarized conversation with no middle ground or nuance.

Your rant is nonsense. The idea that it's extremely liberal is proven every single day on the editorial pages of the "Old Gray Lady."

Try reading this. It's a decade old, but the paper's philosophy has not changed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?src=pm&pagewanted;=1

[jusanothajoe]

Yes and it clearly demonstrates what this thread has failed to do, why a gun is necessary on a golf course. In roughly 4 hours in almost every instance you are several hundred yards from the 8 or so people around you with little interaction with them. I am not anti CC just think people need to make wise decisions where and why. I am fairly certain the instances of on course violence resulting in death are exceedingly rare, like getting struck by lightning rare.

This thread has left the realm of how it pertains to golf long ago and some members are contributing fictional events in an attempt to prove a risk that really doesn't exist. That the OP lived to tell his tale is proof enough it's unnecessary, the chances it ever happens again is slim to none. If it happened at all as he described it. Seriously panhandling bums approaching from the trees? Yeah right. Think about this one. The entire point of panhandling is to beg as much money as you can. You'd have to be an idiot to think standing along a course hiding in a tree line with groups passing every 10-12 minutes, maybe nowhere near you, would be a good opportunity. All this crazy anecdotal evidence is full of holes.

Really don't care who believes my story. I was there. I am not liberal, I do not have to make stories up to make my case sound better. The BUMS hide in the trees because although it's

not enforced much, panhandling (begging without any self pride) is illegal. They hide til an unsuspecting golfer comes by, just in case one of the FEW police that enforce the law happens to ride by.

[Dave2512]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Yes and it clearly demonstrates what this thread has failed to do, why a gun is necessary on a golf course. In roughly 4 hours in almost every instance you are several hundred yards from the 8 or so people around you with little interaction with them. I am not anti CC just think people need to make wise decisions where and why. I am fairly certain the instances of on course violence resulting in death are exceedingly rare, like getting struck by lightning rare.

This thread has left the realm of how it pertains to golf long ago and some members are contributing fictional events in an attempt to prove a risk that really doesn't exist. That the OP lived to tell his tale is proof enough it's unnecessary, the chances it ever happens again is slim to none. If it happened at all as he described it. Seriously panhandling bums approaching from the trees? Yeah right. Think about this one. The entire point of panhandling is to beg as much money as you can. You'd have to be an idiot to think standing along a course hiding in a tree line with groups passing every 10-12 minutes, maybe nowhere near you, would be a good opportunity. All this crazy anecdotal evidence is full of holes.

Fair point relative to guns on courses: I haven't personally felt a need to carry on a golf course, as yet, but I don't diminish the anecdotes because I play in the big city and the stories of episodes like those cited here are somewhat common.

On a golf course? Prove it, link to even one article, bet you can't find one where the threat of danger could have resulted in death due to violence. I live in a big city too, well near it, but I lived in the heart of the city for 30 something years. I can't think of even one city course, even those near the worst neighborhoods where anyone but golfers would have access to the course. Even if they did it goes back to the opportunity point. What criminal is going to spend time stalking a golf course where even on a busy day it's a limited to a couple hundred golfers spaced out on what 150 acres. It doesn't make sense.

[David in FL]

But there isn't much risk associated with having a smoke detector or fire extinguisher around. If there was even a tiny chance of a smoke detector STARTING a fire, I think a lot of people might think twice about owning one.

There is absolutely no chance of a firearm shooting anyone on it's own either.

It's a tool.  As with all tools, whether a car, a hammer, a knife, a screwdriver, a boat.......it can be used properly or misused.  It's incumbent upon us to use all tools properly and legally.  If we can't, we should refrain from using that particular tool and as always, we must be held accountable for our actions when using any tool.

I can't kill anyone by accident with my smoke detector.

You can kill someone accidentally with your car, yet I'm sure that you drive.  Likely because you're confident in your ability to operate your car safely, even though a risk is still there.

This is why these threads always end poorly.  It always strays into a pro-gun vs anti-gun argument, even though that wasn't the point of the OP.  I'll quit now, and only reiterate how lucky we are to live in a country where we have the freedom to make such choices for ourselves while knowing that those who misuse, or abuse their rights are held accountable for doing so.

[Gunther]

All for this but tough to do on a national scale; libs would never allow national gun-handling education. Those that receive licenses subject themselves to background checks and eduction; hence, very few gun crimes come from that sector. The only way to educate the rest is to actively enforce the laws, which just isn't done today. Perhaps stop and frisk, worked well in NY.

[jusanothajoe]

On a golf course? Prove it, link to even one article, bet you can't find one where the threat of danger was death due to violence. I live in a big city too, well near it, but I lived in the heart of the city for 30 something years. I can't think of even one city course, even those near the worst neighborhoods where anyone but golfers would have access to the course. Even if they did it goes back to the opportunity point. What criminal is going to spend time stalking a golf course where even on a busy day it's a limited to a couple hundred golfers spaced out on what 150 acres. It doesn't make sense.

Isn't marijuana legal in your state ? all your bums probably already stoned, don't need to beg

[Gunther]

Not sure how many of these episodes have actually made the paper but I play 3 or 4 courses in downtown Dallas where stories from club pros or other members/players are common. I think Trevino even talks about something like this happening to him at Tenison in Dallas once. I mean, it happens.

[Dave2512]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

On a golf course? Prove it, link to even one article, bet you can't find one where the threat of danger could have resulted in death due to violence. I live in a big city too, well near it, but I lived in the heart of the city for 30 something years. I can't think of even one city course, even those near the worst neighborhoods where anyone but golfers would have access to the course. Even if they did it goes back to the opportunity point. What criminal is going to spend time stalking a golf course where even on a busy day it's a limited to a couple hundred golfers spaced out on what 150 acres. It doesn't make sense.

Not sure how many of these episodes have actually made the paper but I play 3 or 4 courses in downtown Dallas where stories from club pros or other members/players are common. I think Trevino even talks about something like this happening to him at Tenison in Dallas once. I mean, it happens.

Maybe but again not sure how reliable stories told sitting around the pro shop and club grill are. Lot's of fish tales and war stories at the golf course.

[burtonda]

Your drive to the course is far and away the "riskiest" activity, with respect to your health, you will partake in during a round of golf. Second riskiest is probably cruising around in a golf cart during the round. Somewhere much lower on the list would be getting hit in the head with an errant shot or struck by lightning, and then even further down the list is the likelihood your life will be threatened by other golfers assaulting you.  So if you're so concerned about surviving a round of golf that you feel the need to pack some heat, perhaps you'd be better off wearing a helmet during the round or walking to the course.

Also, if this question were presented in any other sport you'd get laughed off the board. I can only imagine how awesome softball arguments and hockey fights would be if participants were packin'.

[Mr. Desmond]

Your rant is nonsense. The idea that it's extremely liberal is proven every single day on the editorial pages of the "Old Gray Lady."

Try reading this. It's a decade old, but the paper's philosophy has not changed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?src=pm&pagewanted;=1

As stated previously, the NY Times is acknowledged as the BEST newspaper in the World.

The Opinion pieces tend to be liberal as we use that term today. Their conservative columnists, and they have a few, tend to be the old style of Republicans -- moderate. I call them realistic or practical.

The article that was given was based on facts. It appears you do not like the facts or the manner in which the facts were analyzed, and as a result, you attack the source. That is typical, but it does not mean you are correct. It means you have no argument. Another poster used the facts in the article to make a valid argument. Bravo to him, Boo to you.

:-)

[yrew]

I like this about the world. We are all different. For some it is perfectly normal to marry your sister. For some it is totally normal to carry a gun. For me both are abnormal but what the heck you go girls. As long as you don't make me do either of them I am fine. And I stopped trying to convince people their believes are wrong according to my views because that would be me trying to make you do the things I find normal. I do laugh about a lot of believes though, some are just too stupid ;)

[mailman]

I educated my child on firearms. taught her how too shoot and firearm safety at a very early age. She also knew to never touch a firearm without me around. Hope you don't have any kitchen knives around for kids to get their hands on and go around stabbing there friends and their selves.

EXACTLY! I grew up around firearms in the 70's in NZ with access to weapons from bb guns up to Lee Enfield .303 rifles and everything in between. I even had my own .22 single shot rifle my grandad gave me before I was 10. Firearm safety was drilled in to my sister and I by dad, sometimes at the end of a wooden ruler BUT not once did I ever treat firearms in our house as anything other than loaded and deadly. Keep in mind this was a period in time where you didn't have to lock the firearms away and dad also added hand guns to his collection as we grew up (his pride and joy was his magnum and .38 special). You could say we had our own arsenal at home! As we lived in a rural area EVERYONE had access to firearms and not once where any children ever killed by a firearm in an unlocked wardrobe. That of course isn't to say it never happened because it did but it's irrational to just blurt out to anyone "hope you don't have kids" rah rah rah! The point I'm making is that dad made a point of ensuring we were educated in safe handling of fire arms and, as kids, we spent many school holidays with dad attending numerous Mountain Safety firearm and outdoor safety courses and events (which for some reason most seemed to be held when it was cold and wet!:) Regards Mailman

[boogielicious]

Let's make all gun owners take a course. But lets turn 16 year olds loose in 3000 lb vehicles with no training what so ever. Wonder why no one ever talks about the evil cars ?

Maybe in your state.

In MA, you cannot get behind the wheel without taking a drivers ed course and passing a test for your permit.  Then you are required to take driving course and/or log 40 hours with a licensed driver of the age of 21.  You will also lose your license as a teen driving with any motor vehicle violation.

I grew up with firearms in the house and was taught by an expert marksman (my father) how to safely use them.  I cannot see any validity to the argument that you should not be required to be trained to use a firearm and certified as such.

[Dave2512]

So what? My Dad was a cop and many of his friends as well. I saw more guns than you can imagine back in the day. Doesn't mean it's appropriate to carry one on a course where the chance of a violent encounter is about as common as winning the lottery. In fact the cops I golf with don't take guns to the course. Golf is friggin' leisure activity, a chance to get way from all that. Guns rights, gun safety, whatever really don't have any purpose in this thread. This is about guns on the course not why you think it's okay to own one because you had a responsible upbringing. The OP is prepared to shoot someone because he's afraid of being attacked by an unarmed drunk, like it's an every day occurrence.

[ditchparrot19]

As stated previously, the NY Times is acknowledged as the BEST newspaper in the World.

The Opinion pieces tend to be liberal as we use that term today. Their conservative columnists, and they have a few, tend to be the old style of Republicans -- moderate. I call them realistic or practical.

The article that was given was based on facts. It appears you do not like the facts or the manner in which the facts were analyzed, and as a result, you attack the source. That is typical, but it does not mean you are correct. It means you have no argument. Another poster used the facts in the article to make a valid argument. Bravo to him, Boo to you.

:-)

Oh, geez! Another round of drivel.

The NY Times being regarded as the "best newspaper in the world" has nothing to do with any of this. If a dwarf is acknowledged as the "tallest midget in the world," does that make him a tall person? Yeah, that's an extreme example, but it illustrates the same line of thinking.

I'm not saying the article was not based on facts. I'm saying that particular facts were carefully selected so that the article painted a picture that fits with the paper's philosophy that guns in the possession of average citizens are a very bad thing. A whole bunch of facts that say otherwise were conveniently left out.

This is common practice throughout all media. I know this all too well – I've spent my entire adult life in that sector. The conservative side does it, too.

I like facts a lot -- but I want all of them, not just the ones that promote particular agendas.

[Gunther]

So what? My Dad was a cop and many of his friends as well. I saw more guns than you can imagine back in the day. Doesn't mean it's appropriate to carry one on a course where the chance of a violent encounter is about as common as winning the lottery. In fact the cops I golf with don't take guns to the course. Golf is friggin' leisure activity, a chance to get way from all that. Guns rights, gun safety, whatever really don't have any purpose in this thread. This is about guns on the course not why you think it's okay to own one because you had a responsible upbringing. The OP is prepared to shoot someone because he's afraid of being attacked by an unarmed drunk, like it's an every day occurrence.

The point is, it's not inappropriate to carry one on a golf course. I haven't felt a need but I'm OK with anyone licensed doing so. Going to the movies is also a leisure activity, odds against a mass murder occurring there very similar to winning the lottery, but it happened. I sure wish someone was carrying in that situation, would have been fewer dead and injured. If you're licensed, it's appropriate to carry wherever it's legal. We need to make more places legal.

[Patch]

I am not sure how many folks on hear have been in the military, and actually killed an enemy with a gun. I am also not sure how many folks on here have actually killed a person legally to protect their family and property while in civilian life.  Just having a weapon is not protection. It might act as security blanket for the owner, but not protection. The bad guy climbing in the window does not know, and worse yet, probably does not care if a gun is present in the home or not. A good point to remember is that if you are put in a situation where you might need your gun, you better be mentally, and physically prepared to used it to the ultimate end. If you are not, you don't need a gun

[iacas]

NYTimes/December 26, 2011

That's one story Jerry (and not even a recent one). For every story like this you dig up, someone else can find a story about how someone with a gun saved lives.

Why don't you dig through the NY Times archives and try to find a piece about how the use of a firearms by a civilian protected innocent lives? In the real world, that's a far more frequent occurrence than any incident resembling the guy on the bike thing, but the paper won't touch that. It doesn't fit its agenda.

Or two stories. It is more common.

Which leads me to even question the necessity for it.  If the incidents are that rare, then why would you want to encumber yourself with a gun, and with the responsibility for knowing where and when to use it properly and safely?

The incidents of people being struck by lightning are rare, but when it's in the area, I get the hell off the golf course.

More lives are saved from gun owners every year than are lost . The number gets even larger when you remove criminal-on-criminal crime.

The "gun problem" is an economic problem. Eliminate inner-city gun violence, or even just "minority-on-minority inner-city gun violence," and the U.S. gun violence rate drops below many, many other countries, and falls inline with world averages. Then you remove suicides (other countries don't count them, the U.S. does), and the rate drops even more.

The stories of actual events, even with a low percentage of occurrences, is to reduce them even more. The guy in Houston who carries a gun to tell his neighbor to cut down on the noise at a party and kills his neighbor. This driver who attempts to kill a bicyclist because he rides with his family on the side of the highway. I would not ride on a highway ... but that's another story.

The aim is to educate. And if you do not urge better education, then guess what... bad things happen.

Then please share the many, many stories where gun owners saved lives, too. After all, if the aim is to educate, you've gotta share the whole picture, not just your liberally biased side of things.

I can't kill anyone by accident with my smoke detector.

To the post somewhere above by the guy who keeps a gun in his nightstand... I sincerely hope that you never have any kids running around your house.  This is the most common way that kids get hold of a gun and accidentally shoot themselves or others.

Rich, swimming pools kill a lot more kids each year than guns.

I think the numbers are something like 1 in 10,000 pools will result in the death of a child each year, while 1 in 1,000,000 guns will be used in the death of a child each year.

That's only 100x more likely.

It is a "common way" but at the same time, it's really not all that common.

There is absolutely no chance of a firearm shooting anyone on it's own either.

It's a tool.  As with all tools, whether a car, a hammer, a knife, a screwdriver, a boat.......it can be used properly or misused.  It's incumbent upon us to use all tools properly and legally.  If we can't, we should refrain from using that particular tool and as always, we must be held accountable for our actions when using any tool.

You can kill someone accidentally with your car, yet I'm sure that you drive.  Likely because you're confident in your ability to operate your car safely, even though a risk is still there.

This is why these threads always end poorly.  It always strays into a pro-gun vs anti-gun argument, even though that wasn't the point of the OP.  I'll quit now, and only reiterate how lucky we are to live in a country where we have the freedom to make such choices for ourselves while knowing that those who misuse, or abuse their rights are held accountable for doing so.

Quoted just because.

The article that was given was based on facts. It appears you do not like the facts or the manner in which the facts were analyzed, and as a result, you attack the source. That is typical, but it does not mean you are correct. It means you have no argument. Another poster used the facts in the article to make a valid argument. Bravo to him, Boo to you.

Your mistake is believing that one story is much of an argument itself.

Though there are exceptions, and it's not exactly polar, these arguments all tend to go down this path:

Anti-Gun: Emotional arguments, lots of one-off stories that play on the emotions and serve as "examples."

Pro-Gun: Data and facts, and rebuttals of the one-off stories with stories of their own.

The bad guy climbing in the window does not know, and worse yet, probably does not care if a gun is present in the home or not.

Uhm, those people absolutely do care about whether a gun owner is likely to be living in the house or not. These are things that are fairly well known. They have studies, stats, and all kinds of things, plus you don't even need more than common sense: if you're considering robbing one of two houses, and one has a few known handguns in the house, and the other has anti-gun posters in their yards each election year, which house are you gonna rob?

---

This thread can get back to discussing CCW on the golf course , please, or we'll move it to the Grill Room. Thank you.