Playing Golf with Someone Carrying a Weapon

[Subaroozz]

I'm against it not because my playing partner is suddenly going to shoot at me, but because of an accidental discharge.  People make mistakes, I don't want to get shot because you made a mistake, or have to tend to you when you make a mistake and shoot yourself.

And if one brings a gun because they are fearful of coyote sitting on the tee box... just let him play through.  Leave him alone.  No reason to shoot an animal.  This is my philosophical problem with people that carry weapons.  No matter what they say, deep down they are just itching to use it on something.

Plus, studies have shown that simply carrying any type of weapon makes one more aggressive and more likely to engage in confrontation.

[David in FL]

I'm against it not because my playing partner is suddenly going to shoot at me, but because of an accidental discharge.  People make mistakes, I don't want to get shot because you made a mistake, or have to tend to you when you make a mistake and shoot yourself. And if one brings a gun because they are fearful of coyote sitting on the tee box... just let him play through.  Leave him alone.  No reason to shoot an animal.  This is my philosophical problem with people that carry weapons.  No matter what they say, deep down they are just itching to use it on something. Plus, studies have shown that simply carrying any type of weapon makes one more aggressive and more likely to engage in confrontation.

:doh:

[Subaroozz]

[danL]

Legitimate question, what does being military or law enforcement have to do with anything? Both of those people would be off duty and therefore, regular citizens. Seems like you've started the debate off with the ideology that firearms are fine for military and police but bad for citizens. I guess your bias is too strong to overcome. I also second the concealed notion. Unless you're carrying a full size pistol in a belt holster, why would anyone ever know you have it? I think people's opinions on firearms are funny. Ask anyone how they feel about life insurance and you'll get a general consensus that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Why does that simple rule of life get thrown out the window because some people have an irrational fear of an inanimate object? Otherwise rational people throw all logic out the window because "that's an evil gun!" More people are injured intentionally with blades every year than firearms in US. Is anyone cleaning out their knife block now? Also, do a quick bit of research on how many people are assaulted with legally owned firearms each year. I suppose I should lobby for all cars to be illegal because I don't want a guy that's had 3 DUIs driving.

[saevel25]

And if one brings a gun because they are fearful of coyote sitting on the tee box... just let him play through.  Leave him alone.

Sometimes animals don't leave you alone.

No matter what they say, deep down they are just itching to use it on something.

You are completely wrong.

Plus, studies have shown that simply carrying any type of weapon makes one more aggressive and more likely to engage in confrontation.

I found a study on this. Their claims seem embellished.

7% is not significant. 6% is not significant. 4.5% is not significant. For a poll of 2000 drivers, a margin of error of less than 5% is good. Most of those values would be with in or close to the margin of error.

Could it be that those who own guns tend to be more in your face, outwardly expressing people, yea. I am sure more reserved people probably don't see the need for guns. That is just stereotyping on my part with no facts to support that really, but it makes sense to me.

Still, it isn't a significant. If the values were in the 10%+ range then you'd have a case for it.

I agree

[jamo]

I found a study on this. Their claims seem embellished.  7% is not significant. 6% is not significant. 4.5% is not significant. For a poll of 2000 drivers, a margin of error of less than 5% is good. Most of those values would be with in or close to the margin of error.  Could it be that those who own guns tend to be more in your face, outwardly expressing people, yea. I am sure more reserved people probably don't see the need for guns. That is just stereotyping on my part with no facts to support that really, but it makes sense to me. Still, it isn't a significant. If the values were in the 10%+ range then you'd have a case for it.

In a peer-reviewed study, "significant" would likely be understood to mean "statistically significant." Then again, we can't check on that because you haven't supplied a source.

[saevel25]

In a peer-reviewed study, "significant" would likely be understood to mean "statistically significant."

Then again, we can't check on that because you haven't supplied a source.

The person who wrote this article referenced a study done.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect#_ednref3

[Silent]

Legitimate question, what does being military or law enforcement have to do with anything? Both of those people would be off duty and therefore, regular citizens. Seems like you've started the debate off with the ideology that firearms are fine for military and police but bad for citizens. I guess your bias is too strong to overcome.

I also second the concealed notion. Unless you're carrying a full size pistol in a belt holster, why would anyone ever know you have it?

I think people's opinions on firearms are funny. Ask anyone how they feel about life insurance and you'll get a general consensus that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Why does that simple rule of life get thrown out the window because some people have an irrational fear of an inanimate object? Otherwise rational people throw all logic out the window because "that's an evil gun!"

More people are injured intentionally with blades every year than firearms in US. Is anyone cleaning out their knife block now?

Also, do a quick bit of research on how many people are assaulted with legally owned firearms each year. I suppose I should lobby for all cars to be illegal because I don't want a guy that's had 3 DUIs driving.

Very strange comparisation in my opinion, sorry to say. Having a life insurance doesn't reflect or bother other people. Have a gun might: it can get stolen, it can be used in an illegal manner, you can turn out to be a crazy one... so you posessing a gun can have a impact on other people's lifes, having a insurance can't.

I feel like the discussion can split in two ways. I understand that a gun can protect you, and that there are examples that it did. Also that changing the law right now won't stop criminals from using guns. But because of the gun laws for so many decades allready, there are so many guns out there and it's much easier (also for criminals) to get one that in total picture your society isn't saver then it would have been if guns were already banned decades ago.

I think this pictures says a lot:

Compared to Holland for example, USA have 950% more gun related deaths per 100.000 people. But also compared to other 'Western' society's the difference is immense. Now you can use that as an argument that this proves that apparently it's nessesary to protect yourself, but I use it as an argument that you got to this point because of the descisions regarding gun laws in the past.

I'm sorry if this is too off-topic btw, if we have to open a specific topic for this discussion that's fine.

[cipher]

I feel like the discussion can split in two ways. I understand that a gun can protect you, and that there are examples that it did. Also that changing the law right now won't stop criminals from using guns. But because of the gun laws for so many decades allready, there are so many guns out there and it's much easier (also for criminals) to get one that in total picture your society isn't saver then it would have been if guns were already banned decades ago.

I think this pictures says a lot:

Compared to Holland for example, USA have 950% more gun related deaths per 100.000 people. But also compared to other 'Western' society's the difference is immense. Now you can use that as an argument that this proves that apparently it's nessesary to protect yourself, but I use it as an argument that you got to this point because of the descisions regarding gun laws in the past.

A couple of good points in the above bold.  I do disagree with the lower bold section.  We got to this point because of a cultural problem.  And yeah maybe a cultural problem compounded by illegal gun use(and too much illegal circulation, which is a problem that can actually be fixed).  That argument won't sway any 2nd amendment advocates though, as it goes against what it was put there for.  Switzerland does not have that such a problem with the 4th highest gun ownership rate in the world. In your graph they are higher via gun death rates, but in overall murder rates per 100,000 they are pretty low.  They are at .6 vs the Netherlands at .9 or even Australia who on your list is very low but in overall murder statistics is at 1.1.

[boogielicious]

Legitimate question, what does being military or law enforcement have to do with anything? Both of those people would be off duty and therefore, regular citizens. Seems like you've started the debate off with the ideology that firearms are fine for military and police but bad for citizens. I guess your bias is too strong to overcome.

I also second the concealed notion. Unless you're carrying a full size pistol in a belt holster, why would anyone ever know you have it?

I think people's opinions on firearms are funny. Ask anyone how they feel about life insurance and you'll get a general consensus that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Why does that simple rule of life get thrown out the window because some people have an irrational fear of an inanimate object? Otherwise rational people throw all logic out the window because "that's an evil gun!"

More people are injured intentionally with blades every year than firearms in US. Is anyone cleaning out their knife block now?

Also, do a quick bit of research on how many people are assaulted with legally owned firearms each year. I suppose I should lobby for all cars to be illegal because I don't want a guy that's had 3 DUIs driving.

Not sure who you are directing the question to.  Please use the quote function.

As the OP, I will state that this was worded not to be a statement on gun rights or gun control. It specifically just asks your comfort level with playing with an unknown person who has a handgun that you know is not a trained law enforcement officer.  As for me, I am very comfortable around guns being taught by my father at a young age and have no issue with responsible gun ownership.  My 82 year old Mom is licensed and has both revolvers and rifles to do target shooting.  I just chose not to own one because I have no interest in shooting anymore.  So please don't label me an anti-gun nut.

For me, not knowing the person raises some questions.  I would pay closer attention to the way the person behaves if I was in the group.  I would wonder if they had proper training for safety and use. I would wonder why they feel they need to bring it on the course. There is a small percentage of legal drivers who are bad drivers and subject to road rage.  Maybe this guy is one of them. That is what is unknown and why my comfort level would be lower.

[jamo]

The person who wrote this article referenced a study done.  [URL=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect#_ednref3]https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect#_ednref3[/URL]

That's what I was getting at. You're quoting the words of an article rather than the initial study, which (I'm assuming) you and I haven't actually gotten a chance to read in context. Absent the actual study, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the wordsmithing of that article.

[iacas]

I am originally from a pretty large city (USA) and lived there for 35 years. There were several shootings per week with most being gang related and most involving illegal firearms. Growing up, very few of my friends had firearms in their homes and the ones who did had them locked up. But between the age of 10 and my early 20's, I'd personally been involved with 4 altercations that involved knives, a couple with chains and baseball bats and one where a handgun was fired - and it's not like I went out looking for trouble. My point is that there was a lot of violence involving weapons and not just guns.

In 1995, I moved up north to a small town. Because most folks hunt up here, the vast majority of homes contain firearms and a lot of people carry legally. Just like anywhere else, there are plenty of a-holes. People have arguments, fist fights, there's road rage, etc, but rarely does anyone pull a firearm. It happens, but not nearly as often as you'd think with all those weapons readily available. I know it's a smaller population, but there just seems to be a different mindset in this small town culture.

Again, the gun violence issue is largely economic. I think that's well documented (if you seek out such documents).

It would be nice to see this country get rid of all the illegal firearms as is the case in yours. But even if that were to happen, I'd still want the right to own firearms legally. Self-defense is a distant third on my list of reasons for having them and the thought of ever having to use one against another person isn't even on my radar.

As you likely know it's going to be impossible to get rid of all "illegal" guns while keeping guns "legal."

However, statistics also show that shots being fired by a civilian legally carrying a firearm (out of question for me in the described scenario) in a legitimate self defense situation outside the home is so rare as to be almost non existent. In most instances the presence of a firearm ends the situation without shots being fired, legitimate or otherwise.

Yep. The presence of a gun deters crime.

If you're a thief and you have a choice between robbing a home known to have guns and one that is known not to… which are you going to choose?

(The same of course holds true of "vicious attack dog" and other things like "homeowners are home," a home robber can only know so much.)

No reason to shoot an animal.

Yeah, who cares if it's attacking you. Or your wife, or child. No reason to shoot an animal at all!

No matter what they say, deep down they are just itching to use it on something.

Ridiculous. I'd go out of my way to avoid needing it, but knew it was there if I was unsuccessful.

That's what I was getting at. You're quoting the words of an article rather than the initial study, which (I'm assuming) you and I haven't actually gotten a chance to read in context. Absent the actual study, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the wordsmithing of that article.

Plus, of the 2000 people, how many had guns in their cars? And how were the 2000 people chosen?

[rehmwa]

Because most folks hunt up here, the vast majority of homes contain firearms and a lot of people carry legally. Just like anywhere else, there are plenty of a-holes. People have arguments, fist fights, there's road rage, etc, but rarely does anyone pull a firearm. It happens, but not nearly as often as you'd think with all those weapons readily available. I know it's a smaller population, but there just seems to be a different mindset in this small town culture.

this is normal - it's not the guns, it's the culture that matters

growing up with responsible gun owners teaches youngsters to be responsible gun owners - it's really that simple

making it about the object, rather than about the training and familiarization of firearms, is about as stupid a philosophy that can held

which do we want:

1 - gun owners that have been raised to be familiar and responsible with their property that will teach their kids the same?  or;

2 - make all gun ownership illegal such that they are mysterious and dramatic and when people get them they have no clue how to use or handle them - but they want them because the movies have made them romantic and dangerous - first rule example - any idiot that thinks holding a handgun sideways should lose the right, his parents should be shamed for not teaching him right

[rehmwa]

If you're a thief and you have a choice between robbing a home known to have guns and one that is known not to… which are you going to choose?

If I'm looking to steal guns - I go to the first home

If I'm looking to steal anything else - I totally avoid the first home

Originally Posted by Subaroozz

As much as you like to pretend by carrying a gun, you are not John Wayne.  You don't have the reaction time to pull out your gun in the time it takes for an angry animal to charge 50 feet.

.

Stop trying to be a faux badass, and settle your issues peacefully, walk away if you have to.  I'd hate to live in your world where you are constantly threatened.

[kpaulhus]

Unless I am in a bar, or a university, I usually have a gun on me. Its part of life coming from Florida. Everyone is packing heat. I don't feel scared or worried and hope I never run into a situation where I need to use it. 5 years have passed and the gun is with me 80% of the time, and you prob wont notice it. Never had a reason to even reach for it. I feel we as US Citizens have the right to carry if we are legally allowed to, so why not? Its a freedom.

I dont keep it in my golf bag, but its in my car when Im at the course. I mean, really, who has ever felt threatened playing golf? Im more scared of lakes and OB than I am other golfers.

[inthehole]

Plus, studies have shown that simply carrying any type of weapon makes one more aggressive and more likely to engage in confrontation.

OK, this is just utter BS.   I'll just leave it at that ...

[Golfingdad]

Plus, studies have shown that simply carrying any type of weapon makes one more aggressive and more likely to engage in confrontation.

OK, this is just utter BS.   I'll just leave it at that ...

Quick google search came up with many returns for the "weapons effect."

That's not to say that the "effect" itself is something, but it appears that their certainly are "studies that have shown," so @Subaroozz quote is very much NOT "utter BS."

[JonMA1]

Originally Posted by iacas

Again, the gun violence issue is largely economic. I think that's well documented (if you seek out such documents).

I'm sure statistically, you are 100% correct nationwide. But I doubt income has as much to do with the two areas I described. I didn't have time to do any real research because it's not that important either way. The area I live in does not have a lot of money. Statistic probably indicate that poverty occurs more often in larger cities than in the sticks. But from my very narrow perspective, that's not the case.

Pinellas County, Florida:

• Population 2010: 916,812 (source US Census)

• Per capita annual income 2009 -2013: $29,262 (source: US Census)

• Murders between 1999 - 2008: 399 (source: RecordsPedia)

Wexford County, Michigan (same sources as above):

• Population 2010: 32,735

• Per capita annual income: $20,573

• Murders between 1999 - 2008: 4

This doesn't get into what weapons (if any) were used so it very off-topic. The density of the population is a huge factor IMO and likely another reason why crime was so high back home. If we consider that more people simply stay indoors in the Michigan winters than they do in FL, I think that's relevant.

I still contend that culture plays some role. I don't know, I'm not a sociologist or a statistician.