Playing Golf with Someone Carrying a Weapon

[David in FL]

[SPOILER=Warning: Off Topic]If it was up to me, cell phones would be disabled while the car was moving over 5mph except for emergency 911 calls.  I know it would suck for the passengers but something needs to be done as the tougher laws and fines don't seem to be enough to discourage people from texting or using their phones while driving.[/SPOILER]

I'm going to respond to this because I think it is on topic. First, I'll disagree a bit, because I think it would do exactly to cell phones what I dislike about the anti-gun crowd. Attempt to place the blame on the object, and regulate the reasonable use of that object, instead of holding people accountable for their inappropriate behavior with that object. To tie into this thread, I wonder how many that voted "no" in the poll, would also refuse a ride with someone simply because they saw that they were in possession of a cell phone while driving their car. In neither case is there any evidence that the person is going to engage in dangerous/inappropriate behavior beyond the simple possession of an object that could be used in such a manner.

[Golfingdad]

Not directed at you personally, but I always find it interesting that so many choose to assume that people with any of the aforementioned credentials are competent until proven otherwise. But tend to assume the opposite when it comes to the possession/operation of a firearm.

Anybody with a hair of common sense would know that the safe bet is to use caution and assume nothing in ALL of those cases. (I honestly dont know anybody who assumes all drivers that they don't know are competent) That was the entirety of my point. I was responding to somebody who implied that "hey, if a guy has a CCW then I know he knows what he's doing." My point was that that is super foolish.

[jusanothajoe]

I'm going to respond to this because I think it is on topic.

First, I'll disagree a bit, because I think it would do exactly to cell phones what I dislike about the anti-gun crowd. Attempt to place the blame on the object, and regulate the reasonable use of that object, instead of holding people accountable for their inappropriate behavior with that object.

To tie into this thread, I wonder how many that voted "no" in the poll, would also refuse a ride with someone simply because they saw that they were in possession of a cell phone while driving their car. In neither case is there any evidence that the person is going to engage in dangerous/inappropriate behavior beyond the simple possession of an object thatcould be used in such a manner.

Excellent point David

[Golfingdad]

That's because the anti-gun movement brain washes people .....

I know (hope) you don't actually mean this because it is off-the-charts offensive. You are basically saying that anybody who is anti handgun is stupid and can't think for themselves. But since I'm quite certain that you didn't mean it ... No offense taken. ;). (Just choose your words more carefully) :)

[Dave2512]

About half the people I know with a permit wouldn't be capable of reacting appropriately during a potential necessary deadly force confrontation. I base the assumption on how I see them react in less dangerous situations. FWIW none are hotheads and certainly not maniacs in fact all are people I doubt would even have the guts to reach for the gun but if they did it likely wouldn't end well.

[Ernest Jones]

About half the people I know with a permit wouldn't be capable of reacting appropriately during a potential necessary deadly force confrontation. I base the assumption on how I see them react in less dangerous situations. FWIW none are hotheads and certainly not maniacs in fact all are people I doubt would even have the guts to reach for the gun but if they did it likely wouldn't end well.

Fair point. Big difference between plinking paper targets and being in a live fire situation with adrenaline and fear coursing through your body. Kinda like the driving range vs a 200 yard forced carry. ;-)

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Not directed at you personally, but I always find it interesting that so many choose to assume that people with any of the aforementioned credentials are competent until proven otherwise. But tend to assume the opposite when it comes to the possession/operation of a firearm.

That's because the anti-gun movement brain washes people into thinking gun owners are militia wannabe's  or psycho's on power trips that only buy a gun because they want to shoot someone.

I'm not saying this is how @Golfingdad thinks but it appears to be the common mentality.  Meanwhile handguns take the focus away from licensed drivers who put many more peoples lives in danger by driving drunk and texting.

Many people in the pro-gun movement are also guilty of a) brainwashing gun owners into making you believe that without a gun, you're going to die (when, with exceptions to people who live in high crime areas, the chances are very low) and b) being so pro-gun that they go over the top, e.g., walking around major metropolitan areas with assault-style guns.  (http://www.kptv.com/story/20548025/men-armed-with-rifles-walk-through-portland-to-educate).  Yes those guns were legal and they had the right to do it, but anyone who knows Portland knows that people are going to freak out about it.

Both sides need to find less alarmist ways to discuss this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

If it was up to me, cell phones would be disabled while the car was moving over 5mph except for emergency 911 calls.  I know it would suck for the passengers but something needs to be done as the tougher laws and fines don't seem to be enough to discourage people from texting or using their phones while driving.

I'm going to respond to this because I think it is on topic.

First, I'll disagree a bit, because I think it would do exactly to cell phones what I dislike about the anti-gun crowd. Attempt to place the blame on the object, and regulate the reasonable use of that object, instead of holding people accountable for their inappropriate behavior with that object.

To tie into this thread, I wonder how many that voted "no" in the poll, would also refuse a ride with someone simply because they saw that they were in possession of a cell phone while driving their car. In neither case is there any evidence that the person is going to engage in dangerous/inappropriate behavior beyond the simple possession of an object thatcould be used in such a manner.

I voted "no" and I'll repeat why.  If you have a gun in your golf bag, I'm not going to know it unless you tell me (I'm not going to watch you dig in your bag so I won't see it accidentally, and if I do, I won't say anything and I wouldn't have a problem with it.)  I do not start conversations about controversial subjects with strangers so the only way I know you have a gun is because you told me.  Because of where I live and play, there's absolutely no reason for you to tell me that you have a gun with you.  That alone is "hinky" enough behavior for me to want to play with someone else.

And if I get in a car with someone who starts texting while driving, I would not hesitate to smack the phone out of their hands. (And the people I know aren't dumb enough or addicted-to-texting enough to do it in the first place.)

[Golfingdad]

I'm going to respond to this because I think it is on topic. First, I'll disagree a bit, because I think it would do exactly to cell phones what I dislike about the anti-gun crowd. Attempt to place the blame on the object, and regulate the reasonable use of that object, instead of holding people accountable for their inappropriate behavior with that object. To tie into this thread, I wonder how many that voted "no" in the poll, would also refuse a ride with someone simply because they saw that they were in possession of a cell phone while driving their car. In neither case is there any evidence that the person is going to engage in dangerous/inappropriate behavior beyond the simple possession of an object that could be used in such a manner.

I agree with NTG and disagree with you here for one reason ... There is no "reasonable use" of a cell phone while driving. OTOH, if you are assuming that the technology would mean that every phone in the car would be disabled, then non drivers would be punished and their use of cell phones is "reasonable," in which case I would agree with you here.

[jusanothajoe]

Quote:

Anybody with a hair of common sense would know that the safe bet is to use caution and assume nothing in ALL of those cases. (I honestly dont know anybody who assumes all drivers that they don't know are competent) That was the entirety of my point. I was responding to somebody who implied that "hey, if a guy has a CCW then I know he knows what he's doing." My point was that that is super foolish.

Have to agree with this. In the county I live in, all that is required is a background check. Then it is up to the Sherriff to decide if you get a CCW permit. No classes or training required. I think everyone should have to take a gun SAFETY class before receiving a CCW permit.

[iacas]

I agree with NTG and disagree with you here for one reason ... There is no "reasonable use" of a cell phone while driving.

Bull. My argument hinges upon the use of Bluetooth and hands-free technology, though. And of course for passengers.

[Dave2512]

Here the classes fill up quickly when the gun show comes, they advertise on the radio. I know a family that did it together like it was a trip to the zoo. Class was Sat morning and Mon morning they all went down to the Sheriff's Dept. to pay their fees and apply. Tue a couple had RMGO stickers on the rear window of their cars.

[Golfingdad]

Bull. My argument hinges upon the use of Bluetooth and hands-free technology, though. And of course for passengers.

Oops ... Consider that a brain freeze ... There is no reasonable Use of your phone with your hands ... Let's modify ntgs idea into requiring disabling of the screen/keyboard of drivers while cars are moving.

[newtogolf]

Bull. My argument hinges upon the use of Bluetooth and hands-free technology, though.

And of course for passengers.

Once every car is outfitted with Bluetooth then that argument has a lot more credence but I still see 1 out of 3 cars with the driver holding the phone to their ear.  It also doesn't address texting while driving which I find significantly more dangerous and irresponsible than hands free phone conversations.

[Dave2512]

Even if irresponsible use of a phone while driving has potentially deadly consequences the series of events leading to that point are entirely different things. You aren't faced with deciding whether deadly force is necessary placing a call in your car. If you carry you need to ask yourself am I capable of killing someone on purpose.

[Golfingdad]

Once every car is outfitted with Bluetooth then that argument has a lot more credence but I still see 1 out of 3 cars with the driver holding the phone to their ear.  It also doesn't address texting while driving which I find significantly more dangerous and irresponsible than hands free phone conversations.

And reading the internet

[Gunther]

All these strawman arguments about half the people I know or not everyone will do the right thing just don't jive with the data. I posted the facts yesterday. The bottom line is the overwhelming majority of ccw holders never have a problem, far lower percentages than you'd find with almost any other group. They are not a brain-washed, monolithic group either. They hold or own because it's their right, period. As I also mentioned earlier, it's heartening to see that 70% of the respondents to this poll understand these facts, as for the other 30? Well, thank God for the differences amongst us, would be pretty boring otherwise.

[Dave2512]

All these strawman arguments about half the people I know or not everyone will do the right thing just don't jive with the data. I posted the facts yesterday. The bottom line is the overwhelming majority of ccw holders never have a problem, far lower percentages than you'd find with almost any other group. They are not a brain-washed, monolithic group either. They hold or own because it's their right, period.

As I also mentioned earlier, it's heartening to see that 70% of the respondents to this poll understand these facts, as for the other 30? Well, thank God for the differences amongst us, would be pretty boring otherwise.

I don't doubt the majority of permit holders never have a problem but that says nothing about their ability to react in one, zero. Not to mention you posted data gathered by a pro gun site. If anything all it proves is the majority of permit holders don't need it. The old argument used to be you never know when you will need it not we are better conflict negotiators.

[Gunther]

I don't doubt the majority of permit holders never have a problem but that says nothing about their ability to react in one, zero. Not to mention you posted data gathered by a pro gun site. If anything all it proves is the majority of permit holders don't need it. The old argument used to be you never know when you will need it not we are better conflict negotiators.

Sure, it was pro-gun but the numbers is the numbers. One wouldn't expect the msm to publish these kinds of facts so someone has to do it. And to your other argument, I think the numbers exactly reflect how a ccw holder will react, they do it without brandishing the gun. Of the millions with CCWs, you don't hear about them using guns to solve problems cuz it doesn't happen, as the numbers indicate. Wouldn't make sense that none of them have ever had a conflict while carrying.