Open Carry at Starbucks

If guns frighten you so, don't carry one. But stop trying to force your views and fears on others who just want to exercise their rights.

We already have lots of gun laws, some of them make sense and some of them are just the result of grandstanding politicians wanting to look tough on crime.
Most of the gun and ammunition laws of the last twenty years only serve to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens and to inflame the rhetoric of the far right and make the chicken littles of the state feel safer

Why would you want them to carry empty guns? Thats like carrying a camera with no film or a flash light with no batteries. If guns (A inanimate object that of itself cannot cause harm) bother you so just move on and take you business to another coffee shop that is not as safe or as understanding of the constitution.

When people use their "rights" in a way that makes most others intimidated, they are stepping on the "rights" of those people. This is just another case of people seeing only the side that fits them.

Why in the world would it be necessary to display a gun? People who do this must have an exaggerated sense of drama and showmanship. Real life plain clothes operatives do not display their guns.

You are willing to sacrifice our second amendment rights for a Starbucks coffee? Pathetic COWARD! What are the other amendments worth to you? How about, we trade freedom of speech for a Starbucks honey bun. You mention in your own article two other coffee houses that prohibit firearms. Why not frequent them and leave our rights intact? Starbucks has agreed to follow what the LAW dictates, not the whims of whiney, snot nosed journalists afraid of someone willing to exercise their GOD given right to self defense. Gun free criminal protection zones are not the answer. Getting tough on gun related crime is. Gun control doesn’t work, because criminals don’t follow laws, or obey “gun-buster” signs. People want and need the ability to defend themselves regardless of their location.
I understand some people have a fear of guns. Instead of restricting other people due to their irrational fear, they should educate themselves instead of demonizing tools which have the capability of aiding survival just as much as taking lives. Why not contact your elected officials and ask them to pass concealed carry if you do not like guns out in the open? I will not trade my rights for coffee, tea, honey buns or anything else . . . but blood.

Samuel--People who believe the constitution allows honest and law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns, can only “open carry” most places in California. I’m sure most of them would rather carry a concealed weapon, but this “privilege”, to protect one’s self and one’s family, is currently only allowed to law enforcement.
I have a CCW and to get it I had to submit (and pay for) a background check and I had to show that I understand the laws. Criminals get no such check.
We don’t need any more laws controlling honest people protecting their families. If you want to stop the ANNUAL slaughter of over 40,000 men, women and children you should focus your energy on stopping people from driving cars. Remember: Cars Kill!

A little lesson from psychology 101: external shows of strength are to compensate for internal weakness. Those who openly carry are at heart very afraid and so build a fierce, false front. People who are not afraid leave their doors unlocked at night and sleep peacefully. Those who live in fear bar their doors and arm themselves to the teeth, all the while shouting out how fearless they are. So, those of you who do not understand those armed individuals please show a little compassion for their weakness. And those of you who feel compelled to arm yourselves, please seek psychotherapy to help you overcome your inner weakness rather than glossing over your issues with a brazen facade. Also, try to understand that your armaments do pose a real threat to the lives of others. The Centers for Disease Control recorded over 30,000 firearm-related deaths in 2006. To suggest people 'just get over it' and ignore the real potential for harm from an openly-carried deadly weapon is an untenable position in a civilized society.

I am for banning guns when I can completely trust my government in doing the right thing ALL the time and there is a police officer on every block. Until then I will support armed and vigilant citizens in our communities.

If guns make people safer, why don't we _require_ all school children to carry guns?

Nice one NanoKelp! Only in Santa Barabara would someone make a such a silly argument.

We don't require adults to excercise their rights; so why would we impose this freedom on children?

Maybe we should let the children mature to adulthood and then allow them to carry responsibly as they wish?

NewOrion-People who have no fears are psychpaths. This world isn't as friendly as you believe it to be. Read edukder's post as to why people "open-carry"; believe me its is much better to conceal carry but that would be the gov't deems it too much responsibility to give its citizens.

AZ2SB - There is a significant difference between reasonable fear and excessive fear. I fear open and concealed weapons because of their potential to inflict death and injury. CDC statistics support my position. Responsible gun owners are involved in gun accidents. It happens. To claim otherwise is to argue against irrefutable proof. Many of us are concerned that guns, while carried with the best of intentions, will nevertheless bring more harm than good.

Neworion- Responsible chainsaw owners are also involved in chainsaw accidents, so what. Reasonable fear would cause one to arm themselves, excessive fear would impose a general ban on everybody; like gun bans. Believe me banning weapons never leads to anything good, people can always arm themselves. Most of the murders in Santa Barbara have been at the end of a knife or blunt instrument.

A self-conscious civilian strutting around a Starbucks (of all places) with a firearm is to answer the question: should we have a concealed carry law in California?

Never underestimate the adolescent ideation or stunted reasoning of gun nuts.

Or gun phobes for that matter Chester.

Remember the author of this article is not objecting to civilians carrying firarms. He's objecting to government agents (who may be required as a condition of their emploment) carrying their weapons.

Although the point seems to be that theres no place for weapons in his version of civilized society.

He conveniently forgets that criminals don't follow gun laws, and their guns are not only concealed and loaded, but they aren't registered either.

Neworion gave us an analysis of the pro-defense mentality; therefore, lets examine the anti-gun mentality. Using PROJECTION they ascribe feelings, thoughts and attitudes present in themselves, onto others. All people have violent impulses. You may hear “if you do that one more time I’ll kill you”. They don’t mean it, they’re simply expressing frustration. Some people, however, are unable to admit such emotions and use Projection as a defense mechanism. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone.
Next they use DENIAL, refusing to accept the reality of a given situation. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. The police have no legal duty to protect you and firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family. Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here". They are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable.
Finally, REACTION FORMATION occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite. A person who harbors murderous rage may claim to be a devoted pacifist. Often such people ,as Neworion, take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or target shooting. The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, or abuse. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.
As for a more “civilized society”, its mere illusion. There will always be guns and criminals. Refusing to defend yourself and family against them is accepting that you are a coward, and willing to become their victim. Nice try Neworion. The only “analysis” from the likes of you I enjoy refuting more is “People with guns are trying to compensate for a “small weenie”. For that I would have to have your private email address, to which I could send some photographs and my wifes testimonial that “if mine is a small one I’d hate to see a big one”.

Major, you are so Huge!

-- Big, Long comment!
-- Big Deep ideas Thrust forward ever so bravely!
-- And a Throbbing Desire to mail a picture of your private parts to others! With your "wife's" endorsement!

I'm with Chester: it's unnecessary to rebut the arguments of these zealots; just listen and let them dismantle themselves.

Binky - I know it's difficult to rebut TRUTH. Unlike the fallacious twaddle that comes from the anti-gun side.
To give you some comfort that you may sleep well tonight, I was joking about actually sending pictures.

Open carry is legal in California. Starbucks complies with California law.

If you cannot support a company that obeys the law, do everyone a favor and stay home. Calling the police to have them check out law abiding gun owners is harassment.

Major--Don’t waste your time arguing with the anti-Second Amendment crowd. Their minds are closed to reason. Almost everyone against a reasonable CCW law is a limousine liberal and lives in gated communities with their rich friends. No wonder idiots like neworion sleep with their doors open; they have armed guards protecting them 24/7. They never have to associate with the unwashed masses like the rest of us. Wait until all the dudes currently in prison get their release by the thousands under the governors cost cutting measure.

Trust me: after filling his pants running away from his family in the event of real trouble, neworion would BEG you to “do something” to stop the assault on his loved ones. Remember this: When seconds count the cops are only twenty minutes away.

Nanokelp-children shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns at school-but teachers should. Too bad no teachers had a weapon during some of the attacks that have taken place at schools.

I wish I lived in a world of no crime and no violence, but I don't-and either do you.

God created all men-Colt made them equal.

eduker- I know, and sometimes arguing may do more harm than good, but from Binkys response you see what I mean about making a statement in jest or frustration. Like “if you do that one more time I’ll kill you” or the sending pictures to Neworion. They really do think everyone is out to get them.

eduker: I was not suggesting altering or adding laws. That was your assumption. Other than an open show of braggadocios I simply cannot understand the need for a regular citizen to display arms under any circumstance during a normal daily existence in Santa Barbara,including a visit to a suburban coffee shop. We are not living in downtown Tel Aviv. That's all. I don't care if you have a permit or where you keep your guns if you must have them. That's your business. Just spare us the hot under the collar indignation. As for that manager at Starbucks, she has seen too many westerns and tv shows. I hope she remembers to duck when the shots begin to fly.

Eduker makes a good point about cars killing 40,000 people per year and later neworion states CDC reports guns killed 30000 people. I don't know how accurite either statistic is, but I am interested to know if Neworion who says "I fear open and concealed weapons because of their potential to inflict death and injury" also is affraid of cars and wishes to ban them. If not, why? When apparently cars have killed more people.

Samuel- So you are one of those that are living under the assumption "it can't happen here". Tell you what if the bullets do start flying, hopefully they hit the right people. What, do you believe that a criminal is not going to shoot anybody just because they are unarmed? There was a bank robbery a few years ago where a woman got shot just for the hell of it, not because the robbers were getting shot at.

I still want to know what government agency these guys were from that required them to carry overt weapons to Starbucks. In my experience when plan clothes cops carry open weapons they also clearly display their badges. Statistically if one owns a gun he or she is more likely to meet with a violent death ... In the UK owning a handgun is next to impossible, and if one wants to own a rifle or a shotgun then membership and training at a gun club is mandatory. These tight controls in the UK kept the gun homicide rate down to 35 in 2009. Everybody has a different skill set and like anything else in life gun ownership and use of a firearm is a skill: a skill that is not universal and not one that people naturally possess - some can learn this, but many never will, which is why it makes an Interesting comparison between guns and cars ( driving) because driving is a privilege, which must be trained for, but not a right and can easily be taken away — it is a shame that guns are not controlled in the same way.

mrntop- Actually they are, if you break the law you cannot own a gun ever again. With cars that is not so. If you lack responsibility and abuse your right to own a firearm you lose your right to own one. With your driving privelege you can, for example, drink and drive as many times as you want, but you will always be eligible to get you license back. There are only a few extreme reasons why you would lose your license for life. As far as the UK you mentioned gun murders where down to 35, have they reduced murders though? To a victim does it matter that they were killed by a bullet or knife? Does it matter to that persons family or friends?

Samuel—OK-I must have misunderstood you. But here is what perhaps you do not understand-the people who are carrying their guns into shops are doing so simply to make a point. There has been so much pressure from the elite to ban all reasonable use of handguns for protection that some groups are resorting to theatre to make their point.

I think that in June the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of the second amendment. This will open the door for honest citizens to finally be allowed to carry concealed handguns for self-protection here in California. In my opinion if someone is over the age of 21, has no criminal record, takes and passes an extensive course on gun safety and guns laws, agrees to carry extra insurance and is willing to submit to drug testing, then that person should be allowed to conceal his or her handgun in a purse, jacket or car.

Criminals HATE the idea of citizens having concealed weapons.
In Florida crimes against the elderly plummeted in the year after that state allowed a CCW. The cowardly criminals didn’t like the idea of Grandma blasting a big hole in them when they tried to knock her down to steal her purse.
The media LOVES to trot out the terrible things that sometimes happen when nuts get a hold of guns, but they NEVER do ANY stories of the MANY times each year that having a gun has SAVED a family’s life. They believe that because of a few nuts, NO ONE should have a gun.

Why then don’t we ban all cars because of the horrific toll of drunk drivers?

Mrnntop-I always have to laugh when someone sites England as an example of someplace where gun control is working. First of all (having been to London many times) whenever and wherever you go in London or any big city, there are a hundred cameras watching your every move. Americans would never (one hopes) tolerate such Big Brother action. Secondly, Strong-Arm robbery-where some big stupid brute knocks you out with his fists or a brick- and robs you- is the preferred method of criminals there. Thirdly, we HAVE gun rights here in the USA because our founding fathers didn’t trust government (English government) and believed the motto that “A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without one is a serf” and my personal favorite from Thomas Jefferson: "Those who turn their guns into plowshares will plow for those who didn’t” !!!!!!

AZ2SB : No, I am not under the assumption it can not happen here. Absolutely not. That would be ridiculous, considering what regularly crops up in the news. I just believe in surprise and planning. Some years ago, perhaps before you were born,I do not know however, a high profile downtown Jewellery store was held up. The owner was prepared. Looking out from a two way mirror from the office above he saw the robbery in progress, and bringing out his shot gun proceeded to blast away at the perpetrators .

Surprise is a good weapon. Why let the other side know what you have?

If the general opinion is a displayed fire arm is a deterrent, how come these gun toting experts are not usefully hanging around our oft targeted banks and displaying their firearms , instead of sitting in the comparative safety of a coffee shop sipping lattes?

Samuel-Either you didn't bother to read the comments here, or don't care to try and understand-the people who are carrying unloaded firearms are doing so to MAKE A POINT and not for protection.

I cannot believe the waste of time and energy expended on this issue. I think that the majority of folks, mostly men ( hint hint) that feel the need to own and carry guns are doing so for purely psychological reasons. The likelihood that their fantasy of saving people from some bad guy by pulling out their gun, and being the hero is so unlikely to happen that it is like getting meteorite insurance to make sure that if a meteorite hits you your survivors will be compensated. On the other hand the irrational fear that many "liberals" have of people parading around with guns is greatly exaggerated. We have much greater serious threats such as plastics in our water supply and the ocean, corporations dominating our electoral process and our nation's education system deteriorating to levels below what many third world country would barely tolerate. I think guns should be regulated but if a citizen can prove he or she is competent to use them safely, has no mental or criminal record then they are not much more dangerous than a car. I don't live in a world of such paranoia that I feel the need to carry one but let those so afflicted have their guns. Go in peace.

Who among you has seen a criminal open carry their weapon? Having a weapon in plain view can actually deter crime. Interviews with convicted violent criminals have revealed that the vast majority of them would not have committed their crimes if the victims had been armed. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens, how many convicted felons have been caught in possession of firearms? and not just once or twice but over and over? If given the choice to be dragged down an alley and raped or killed, or putting a hole in the person trying to do something like that to me....I would much rather have it be him than me laying there bleeding.

edukder: I see. Thank you. That's why nothing makes sense on here. Clearly as a foreigner I don't understand what this is all about, but It seems ludicrous to me that people with nothing better to do, waste their time walk around with unloaded guns just to prove a point.

Noletaman- I can vouch firsthand that bringing out a gun stops all nonsense. Now if you are talking about hitmen or some kind of special forces trained person then you are right your chances get slimmer. Any average street punk will run if you pull out a gun or even anything resembling one, so yes it is a very effective deterrent. If you want even more proof here is guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5ttI... vs. no guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkVhVW... BTW in the first video it was not the Koreans who got hurt.

People should not be required to see firearms if they are uncomfortable around them. If it were true that people should be protected from seeing something uncomfortable, the civil rights movement would never have been allowed.

Not a problem Notetaman. What many of us believe is that without a strong Second Amendment all the other amendments and rights guaranteed us by our constitution are meaningless. That is why people are willing to be a little silly to make their point.
Unfortunately there are wealthy elite in this country (who also control this issue via the media) that are completely out of touch with the common folks-those of us who-as Obama said- “cling to our religion and guns”.
The founding fathers of this country-in their wisdom-believed that an armed citizenry would be best able to both protect their persons and resist government take-over.
Another great quote from Thomas Jefferson is that “the tree of liberty needs occasional watering with the blood of tyrants.”

Sorry--that last comment was for Samuel.

That is the problem the world has moved on from 1776 and I seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson or any of the other founding fathers would have liked the way people infer what was not implied.
I am not English, just enlightened - England is not without its own unique problems and sometimes weak laws; however, the weapon of choice for the Police in the UK are their brains. Gun units are rarely called to the scene unless it is clearly a terrorist situation and then the fire power is overwhelming. Casually having coffee with your gun in England would never happen...
I don't have all the numbers, but the murder rate in England is about1000+ in 2009. The rate for suicide by firearms is very low - I believe one or two digits.

I am once more bemused by the pro-gun carriers insistence that those of us who find the open carry exhibitions in Starbucks ridiculous are elite weenies who live in gated communities. I'm an older woman who has lived alone all over Santa Barbara, but never in a gated community. Never even in an apartment complex. I do read (horrors), but I worked hard all my life. I grew up in an agriculture connected family and learned to use a rifle when I was a child. I grew up around guns. They are simply tools. Carrying one does not make you a man and it doesn't protect you from all harm. I have a vision of a bunch of "carriers", through misunderstanding opening up a crossfire in a Starbucks. This whole open carry thing is silly and dangerous. The wild west is over guys. Grow up.

Here, we will help you anti's with THE FACTS.

Oh that’s right, Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968, where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don't have to follow the laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc.... Amazing how the criminals don't have to obey these laws yet only law abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons! After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn't be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

Shall we talk about the effect we have on a bordering country? A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003, Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, March 7, 2005. “Comparing average crime rates for 2003 in the three prairie provinces and in the four bordering states as presented in the report for those crimes that are similarly defined and measured in both countries, we found that, in total, both violent and property crime rates were two thirds higher in the Canadian prairie provinces than in the four border states. Average crime rates were higher in the Canadian Prairies for all crimes with comparable definitions and statistics in the U.S.A.: Homicide – 1.1x higher; Aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and attempted murder – 1.5 x higher; Robbery – 2.1x higher; Breaking and Entering – 2.3x higher; and Motor Vehicle Theft – 3.2x higher.”

USDOJ, a government agency National Gang Activity report 2008 identifies up to 80% of ALL violent crime in the US is attributable to career criminals/gangs http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32...

Shall we review police studies in Chicago and MYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.
www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_s...

www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/p...
www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_rep...

You do nothing to change our pathetic justice system where the poster-child of all gun control laws set the example for the pathetic futility of enforcement. Time and again, anti-gun lobbyists revive the tired “slippery slope” argument to promote what they claim are common sense gun laws, such as mandatory background checks.

Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/... Brady Check report….

Cont

….. that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994. We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source? We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows. Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 90% in today’s numbers. Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty...
Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws.

I mean shall we even describe the gun control experiments going on in Australia, Canada and England that began in 1997? England violent crime goes up from 445k reported to 1.4 mill in 2008, murders don't go down, firearms crimes up, Australia 30% increase, Canada stayed the same, murders didn't go down, firearms crimes up, with violent crime rates all at minimum 2 times the US Violent Crime rate (England at about 5 times the US Violent Crime rate). The US Violent Crime rate which has been going down for over 2 decades . Yeah we see how less guns equals more crimes.

Oh darn, forgot to make sure that when you check their data, they count the same as we do, uh, they don't. Don't forget either that England only counts solved cases, so as not to scare their tourist trade off! This result is repeated wherever gun control is attempted.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/c... Britain

www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics.aspx Australia

www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm Canada

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index...

Shall we now look at government studies that show gun control doesn't do anything to prevent violence, maybe you should start here with an FBI report from several years ago?

www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fb...
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fb...
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fb...
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fb...
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fb...

You can go here and read the National Sciences Foundation report from 2004 on gun control laws, a study that was formed by the anti gun Clinton Administration so just like the Ludgwig & Cook study noted, doesn't prove any causality theory, much less any effect of gun control laws on violent crime, but then you have better data and ....

Cont

....facts than these experts who by chance, are anti gun, yeah, they are, sucks for the antis when their own study hurts their position, LOL! www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10...

Yet we have your earth shattering medical studies that prove without a doubt that removing an inanimate object from the proximity of a suicidal person immediately changes their thought process and feelings thereby preventing their suicide, ROTFLMFAO, nope, doesn’t exist, never will, prove otherwise morons!

Why is it that suicide rates in "enlightened countries" are equal or higher than the US? Do a review, you will find out.

Maybe we should kill the old wild west fantasy perpetrated by dime novels and hollywood. Naw that would destroy another straw-man argument they so dearly love to play, 40 plus states and counting, yet no blood baths eh?

Where are all those examples from the 40 plus other states allowing concealed carry etc, etc, etc, where every single time you moronic anti gun hoplophobes scream “blood will run in the streets” a return to the wild west. Then no blood baths happen, every single time. First, let us see your proof of the wild west being synonymous with shootouts on a daily basis more so than today, or is your historical reference and facts only based on dime novels and Hollywood? Here’s the truth of it, as noted by John Pierce in a 2009 column. The big trailhead towns of the 1870s were rather peaceful, with a total of only 45 homicides between 1870 and 1885 in these towns: Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita, according to historian W. Eugene Hollon "Frontier Violence: Another Look". The murder rate was 1 per 100,000 citizens. Stack that against a major city today, and you will soon be longing for those “days of yester-year when the Lone Ranger rides again” or something like that.

ATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 107 or 35 per year equals .0000044 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida's data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stat... it says the same thing.

JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/... 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .064 to .14 per physician.

Physician is .064 or .14 /.0000044 = 14,000 to 31,818 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't you anti nuts crying to ban doctors?

Lets look at ALL those successful self defenses with a firearm over the last month.

Of course we have the following web sites http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/n...
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogE...

Cont

.....There are so many more, all you have to do is go to that states concealed carry or gun rights organization and start counting.

• • Armed Bahamas resident shoots violent home invader in self defense (Bahamas)
• • Local Clerks Taking Arms Against Robbers (CA)
• • Bait camp owner not charged in fatal shooting (TX)
• • 2 Charged In Connection With Home Burglary, Shooting (FL)
• • Woman shoots, wounds ex-boyfriend (AK)
• • Attempted robbery thwarted by armed citizen (OH)
• • Daughter's ex-boyfriend shot by dad during assault (AZ)
• • Columbus: Third defensive use of a pistol in less than seven days (OH)
• • Homeowner kills robber in Ocoee shootout (FL)
• • Party store customer swipes masked man's gun, kills him (MI)
• • Another Toledo robber shot, this time killed (OH)
• • Off-duty Las Vegas officer shoots armed suspect in Henderson home invasion (NV)
• • Grocery store robber fatally shot by armed clerk (OH)
• • Intruder shot in Henrico County home (VA)
• • Toledo robber shot by store owner (OH)
• • Don't bring a knife to a gunfight (TN)
• • Burglar Killed by Homeowner: Dallas Police (TX)
• • Man shot and killed in West Babylon home (NY)
• • Convenience store clerk shoots violent robber in self defense (FL)
• • Police In Charlotte Investigate Deadly Shooting (NC)
• • Store's owner won't be charged (MS)
• • Knife-Wielding Attacker Shot Dead (TN)
• • Think there's a burglar? Police say get away and call them (CA)
• • Man Fires Shot At Intruder In Delhi Twp. (OH)
• • Armed Cincinnati homeowner scares away a burglar (OH)
• • Armed homeowner sends intruder fleeing (MO)
• • South African armed robber shot by business owner (South Africa)
• • Decatur Man Shoots Burglary Suspect (GA)
• • Suspect killed in home invasion gunbattle (TX)
• • St. Petersburg, FL homeowner shoots home invader in self defense (FL)
• • Police: neighbor shot intruder during home invasion (IN)
• • Armed homeowner stops violent home invader (CA)
• • Man Fatally Shoots Intruder (TX)
• • Robbery Suspect Fatally Shot in Game Room (TX)
• • Lancaster Store Clerk Fires Gun At Armed Robber (PA)
• • Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw (GA)
• • Intruder, occupant exchange gunshots (OH)
• • Northport home invasion victim shoots suspect (AL)
• • Homeowner shoots suspected burglar (NM)
• • House-sitter shoots at intruder, misses (WA)
• • Fight Over Unleashed Dog, Gun Pulled (FL)
• • Police: Man pulls gun during knife fight, faces no charges (TN)
• • 3 Shot During Robbery At Vacant Fulton Home (GA)
• • Cleared: Father who chopped off intruder's ear with samurai sword after he threatened to rape and kill his family (UK)
• • Suspected Burglar Shot To Death At New Orleans Residence (LA)

Cont....

.....• • Armed woman fends off burglar (CA)
• • Guard opens fire during armored car robbery attempt (WA)
• • Police question son's story after he's shot by mom (WI)
• • 70-Year-Old Winter Haven Man Shoots Would-be Thieves (FL)
• • Homeowner Shoots Intruder; OKC Police Arrest Suspects (OK)
• • Armed homeowner stops 2 violent home invaders (MS)
• • Concealed carry permit holder fends off 4 attackers (AZ)
• • Kenner Business Owner Shoots and Kills Robber (LA)
• • Police ID robbery suspect shot, killed by Phoenix homeowner (AZ)
• • Shotgun handy for Yakima man with burglars (WA)
• • Suspect shot during attempted robbery (KY)
• • Homeowners confront intruders with gunfire (NY)
• • Five shot in Cocoa; police investigating (FL)
• • Elderly Man Shoots Intruder (OH)
• • Burglary Suspect Shot by Homeowner in Spartanburg County (SC)
• • West Side Resident Shoots Would-Be Robber (OH)
• • Falls man shoots burglar, Falls police say (NY)
• • Investigators: Deadly shooting was self-defense (CA)
• • Homeowner Shoots and Kills Intruder (MO)
• • 74-year-old N.C. state senator shoots, wounds intruder at his home (NC)
• • Armed woman saves relatives from violent home invaders (OH)
• • Never Bring A Bomb To A Gunfight (KS)
• • Dispute Over Girl Leads To Great Falls, Montana Shooting (MT)
• • Teen, 17, Dies In Shooting By Homeowner (TN)
• • Liquor store robber fatally shot by clerk in Crest Hill (IL)
• • 2 suspects in custody, homeowner charged after burglary try (NY)
• • Shooting victim is kin to GOP leader Meehan (PA)
• • Albuquerque, New Mexico Home Invader Shot and Killed (NM)
• • Man shoots alleged thieves in home invasion (TX)
• • Retired couple defend home against burglary (CA)
•

These details and self defense web sites also show how corrupt and criminally active the supposed "only ones" the police are, freaking hypocrites!

Yeah we see how the US & State Supreme Courts have ruled 10 separate times that the government is not liable for the individuals protection, yet you antis infer they are?

Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.

Cont...

.....Here are many others to reference http://rkba.org/research/kasler/prote...

Why is it that the best police response times are 4 minutes, average 15-20 minutes? What you going to do when the police are minutes away? After all, FBI UCR database 1.36 million violent crimes reported, USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008 4.8 million violent crimes unreported http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty... and over 9 million property crimes. So lets see your earth shattering studies that show that you will never ever be a victim of a violent crime, RTOFLMFAO, and the moon is made of cheese.

Waiting for binky and any other petulant little child using sexual innuendos to compensate for their lack of gray matter to present their earth shattering study where an equal number of antis and pro gun people are lined up side by side. Then binky and his associates will drool as they take their hands and physically measure everyones genitals and prove through actual measurements that owning a firearm is to compensate for lack of manhood. Lets see your study oh darn, there I go again demanding hard facts from those who have none, and never have.

Jarhead1982, OMG, you didn't just argue with facts? Remember if it saves just one life then the nonsense of a law can be passed. Why can't we use that same argument for guns? It's the mealy-mouthed cowards who have never had to stand in harms way that are truly afraid. Rather than take responsiblity for their own safety they would rather have someone else do it for them. Then whine, bitch, and complain when the police aren't there on time to save their bacon. I personally would like to see a national law allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon without having to go through the process of getting a permit. Alaska, and Vermont currently allow this freedom. News flash to the true coward's, Criminals, conceal carry without any controls. Semper Fi. Doc Hunter

mrnntop, as previously stated I think anyone who isn't a felon should be allowed to carry a weapon of their choice concealed without a permit process. I'll temporarily honor your wish that guns were treated like more like cars. I have one requirement from you first. Show me anywhere in the constitution that it is a right to own a car? Oh it doesn't exist does it? Now show me were in the Constitution I can own a firearm for self defense. Ok 2nd Amendment does. Now for some reason lets say we have to be licensed like cars. Does this mean if I have a hypothetical California firearms license, I will be able to take my guns anywhere, just like I can drive my care anywhere?

Oh, so this Starbucks was in New Orleans in late August 2005.
Well, why didn't you say so?

Between the two, Starbucks is clearly the weapon of last choice.

fishpol : Amen

Oh let the numskulls be!
Wearing a gun on your hip is synonymous with wearing a target on your face!
They stand out, and we can keep our eyes (or sites) on them!

get one thing straight: even though cars might kill more people, they are a tool for transportation. The gun is a tool and it's use is for killing or at the very least serious injury or intimidation. Being responsible would mean leaving your gun at home.
Screw starbucks, their coffee isn't very good anyways.

Spacey is a great name for you.

A gun is a tool to protect my wife and family from criminal predators who have no regard for others. We need this protection not only in our homes, but in our cars and, unfortunately, walking down the street in the evening.

If you think guns are dangerous, just look at what cars are doing EVERY DAY! Nationally, impaired driving caused by alcohol or drugs causes one death every 30 minutes, and one injury every two minutes.

If you want to be a real do-gooder-get rid of cars. Without cars people who are drunk or high on drugs will only bump into trees or trip over their shoes. Just look at the damage they do in cars. How can you justify this?

edukder? we are not discussing drugs or alcohol here. Apparently there are more fears involved here than what this story is about. I have no issue about you protecting yours from whatever. If you fear being inside a starbucks, feel free to wear your gun and let everyone know.

You want to use the "car is equally dangerous so why don't we ban them" argument, then apply the same kind of logic that exists in motor vehicle law.
I suggest we use the German automobile speed model. There is no national speed limit in Germany but there is an "advisory limit" of 81 mph. Go faster and you're presumed to be at least partly at fault in any accident.
You want the right to legally open-carry, then accept the consequence that if any resulting harm or damage occurs and you brandished or fired, you're presumed to be at least partly at fault.
The burden of proof then becomes yours to prove otherwise. More power to ya', more money for lawyers.

I'm not sure that we need anymore gun regulations, but I think we could use some sort 5 day "cool down" waiting period on internet posts. Entertaining stuff :)

Spacey-You apparently missed the posts that pointed out that the people who are wearing unloaded side arms are doing so as a protest for not being allow to carry concealed.

I have a current CCW (but not for California) and I am well aware that if I am ever forced to use my weapon to protect my or my family’s life, there will be immediate and unpleasant consequences . For example I will be going right to jail until the cops can sort everything out. I will probably loose my weapon forever and will have to pay a lawyer to represent me. In fact, when you carry, you have FEWER rights because you have to be so careful about what you say or do. This is a small price to pay for the knowledge that in the event of an emergency I can protect my loved ones. I don’t understand why anyone would be against a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon.

I’m not against reasonable regulation, but as it is now is unacceptable. It is very similar to the barriers racists put up for African Americans in their quest for voting rights.

When did the US legal system convert to Napoleonic law where the accused are automatically presumed guilty and must prove their innocence?

As for modeling gun laws after auto regulations, you know what, I could live with that.

No laws barring purchases in other states, buy at any age, travel to any state without having to store your car away, etc, etc, etc. Yeah we would be able to live with that!

After reading this, it is clear that the hoplophobes (look it up) are true to form.

When Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she KNEW that she had the RIGHT to sit anywhere she wished, even as society, and LAWS in force at that time dictated that "a black woman should sit in the back." Was she a nut? Was she compensating for something?

Why do the hoplophobes assign vicious names to those who are now peacefully exercising their RIGHT to open carry a firearm in compliance with local and state laws? Many who responded here with cynical fact-free pot-shots at gun owners, assume the posture of elitists and royally declare that gun owners, who are not seeking ADDITIONAL or SPECIAL consideration but only seek to be left alone as they exercise a RIGHT they AND the anti's already have, are just wrong. Claims of "compensating for ..." and painting gun owners as paranoid cowards. You anti's should be ashamed of yourselves. Your responses don't even reach the caliber of an inner-city schoolyard taunt.

From an article found here:

http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/RosaPark...

"Rosa Parks, a Montgomery, Alabama, seamstress, simply refused to relinquish her seat on a city bus to a white man on December 1, 1955. Her act of courage sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and brought the Civil Rights Movement to national attention. She has been called the mother of the Civil Rights Movement."

One's head must be buried in the sand to deny the REALITY that we live in a dangerous society, and there is overwhelming evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at ANY place where it is in force; Chicago, Washington D.C., Detroit, New York, St. Louis. One cannot honestly deny the heavy GUN CONTROL laws and measures in force in all of those places.

One ALSO cannot deny that WHEREVER strict 'gun control' is practiced, crime rates, murder, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries and auto thefts, kidnappings and more are skyrocketing.

Pick any recent "shooting"; San Ysidro McDonalds, VA.Tech, Columbine. Hoplophobes hyperventilate and “just want all of the bad guns to go away,” but the FACT is, in virtually ALL of those situations, had at least ONE of the intended victims been armed, the outcome may have been much better, or the shooting may not have happened AT ALL.

The 'Open Carry' movement is about the 2nd Amendment and the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. "A right not exercised is a right LOST."

Claims of open carriers waiting for a chance to draw their weapons and heroically shoot some ne'er-do-well are simple fabrications. Your lack of understanding about the true purpose of firearms in a free society is evident. Over 40 states are "Shall Issue" and the "Wild West" scenario that they warn about ad-nauseam, has NEVER happened.

Those of you who oppose the unrestricted carry of loaded firearms FOR SELF-DEFENSE should ask yourselves, "At what point did I shirk the responsibility for my own safety, and the safety of my family?"

waving firearms around in starbucks would be incredibly unnecessary, but i understand the need for officers to carry weapons. this seems to be blow out of proportion!

On January 31st, 2006 the Virginia Legislature defeated HB1572. It was a proposed law to allow licensed CCW holders to carry on Campus in the State.
Larry Hinker, A Va-Tech spokesman, released the following statement. "I'm sure the University Community is appreciateive of the General Assembly's action because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
15 months later a deranged student murdered two dorm residents and then returned, HOURS later, and murdered another thirty law abiding citizens.

How'd that work out for you Larry? Sleep well at night knowing you are a shill for a cowardly administration that allowed, even encouraged, this tragedy to take place?

Those who want to boycott Starbucks for allowing people to lawfully assemble and exercise their inalienable rights really ought to look into a mirror and ask themselves what other rights they would like to abolish because someone might feel uncomortable when someone exercises them in public.

Such socialist ideas; national socialist ideas.

You are correct AZ2SB--The first thing Hitler did when he got into power was take all the guns away.

Godwin's Law of the Internets must have a corollary which pertains to discussions about gun control, health care, and immigration...

I'm calling it at 12:08pm, April 13, 2010.

Yea for open-carry! Of course this could never happen in a Starbucks!?!?!?

An 83-year-old man has been arrested after his gun went off inside the 24-Hour Fitness Center at the Sunvalley Mall on Sunday night, according to the Concord Police Department.

It appears the shooting happened by accident, said Lt. Steve Dyer.

At approximately 6:00PM, CPD officers were dispatched to the 24 Hour Fitness Center located at Sun Valley Mall regarding an elderly male suspect who fired a handgun inside the business.

The suspect was located sitting in his vehicle parked in the west parking lot of the mall near the front of the gym. He was detained without incident and a loaded handgun was located inside his vehicle.

The subsequent investigation revealed the suspect, who is a member of the gym, carried the loaded handgun in his gym bag and entered the locker room. At one point the gym bag was either dropped or bumped and the handgun discharged, firing one round into a wall.

Numerous patrons were nearby when the handgun was inadvertently fired and fortunately nobody was injured during the incident.

The suspect (83 year old Howard Ralph Adams of Concord) was arrested and transported to the Concord City Jail.

He was booked on a felony charge of Willful Discharge of a Firearm in a Negligent Manner, as well as the misdemeanor charges of Carrying a Concealed Weapon/Firearm in a Vehicle and Carrying a Loaded Firearm in Public.

Adams was released pending case review by the District Attorney's Office.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/i...

Oxymoron of a charge, "willfull" adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious, and directed toward achieving a purpose. Some willful conduct which has wrongful or unfortunate results is considered "hardheaded," "stubborn" and even "malicious." Example: "The defendant's attack on his neighbor was willful."

So am thoroughly confused as to how the 83 yr old "willfully" discharged the weapon when he didn't have his hand on it? Or do you have substantiating evidence that he rigged the firearm to discharge if he bumped a spot on his gym bag or had an external trigger in the bag handle like some James Bond spy movie?

Based on the article, and a knowledge of how the nazi prosecutors work, they slapped him with all possible charges to see which ones stick. An everyday ploy on how to generate finances for the city and the corrupt prison system that generates billions in income by making more prisoners.

You have provided one incident of as justification that all people who openly or concealed carry are a risk. Lets apply your theory to the only ones you want authorized., here are multiple incidents of the "only ones authorized" to carry shooting people, abusing power, etc, etc and they far outnumber your example mrgeep.

Based on what appears to be your inference that one is too many, so too you should be clamoring for police to surrender their firearms as they all cant be trusted for the failures of the few, bravo, bravo, bravo! Actually, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic is more appropriate!

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/articl...

http://www.koamtv.com/Global/story.as...

http://www.macon.com/local/story/9847...

http://www.kyw1060.com/Former-Phila--...

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-01-...

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?sec...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/08/o...

This coward who is so against guns, needs to look at the root cause of his own fears and deal with its root cause and not lash out at inanimate objects that he believes are so evil. If you need a little help Dan, read this:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/juli...

I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't the definition of coward be the one who can't feel safe in the mean streets of Santa Barbara without a concealed handgun?

That self-same fellow who huffs and puffs so bravely online about 'cowards,' and brays on and on about boldly upholding so many sacred rights, only to squirrel away a sidearm because of an uncertain belief in their own prowess -- be it brain or brawn -- when it's finally go-time.

Or is that now the definition of "realist?" -- I have such a difficult time keeping up with you willful hoplophiliacs.

Check out how most of the gun nut posts are by new users

I bet there's an organized effort behind the screen of anonymity.

Binky-you seem to be saying that using a weapon to defend yourself against someone stronger than you, smarter than you or even armed makes you some kind of coward? My 18 yr old daughter is 5'2" and 120 lbs. Are you advocating she needs to take her lumps and be a victim because most any male in society physically outmatches her?
We live in a society where young women are victimized every day by a society that allows this. Green River Killer comes to mind. If just one of those 50+ women had a handgun what might have the outcome been?
When it's a matter of life or death(your own) you don't think the advantage of having a weapon is acceptable in our society.

Binky,

Yes, you are wrong.

Definition of coward from Merriam-Webster: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity.

and now from the author: these weren’t little .22 caliber pistols ..., but much larger and more menacing handguns ... they appeared huge and menacing on the hip.

He is cowering (to shrink away or crouch especially for shelter from something that menaces, domineers, or dismays) from the inanimate objects on the coffee-drinkers hips.

To carry a gun on the streets of our society today is not cowardly, it is prudent. Crime happens anytime and anyplace. It is also not always as nice and neat as a 1 on 1 fist fight. It can be many against one. It can be pipes, chains or knives against a person's fists. It is not cowardly to be prepared. Is it cowardly to own a fire extinguisher in your home "just in case" a fire happens and you want to protect your loved ones? A gun is the "fire extinguisher" of crime. Unfortunately, crime does not only happen in home invasions or else we could all just leave our guns at home.

Oh, and about your facetious comment about the "mean streets of Santa Barbara", take a look at facts. These may be from 2006, but they show 2 things: 1) Rapes and Aggravated Assaults were actually higher there than the national average. 2) Santa Barbara isn't the magical place free of crime that you are trying to paint it to be.

http://santabarbra.areaconnect.com/cr...

Anti-gun hoplophobes need to understand one thing. The open carry movement is a large group of American citizens exercising their FIRST Amendment right to freedom of expression by doing something in support of the SECOND Amendment. Those of you who oppose this are in FACT saying that you do not support the FIRST Amendment.

Binky- I believe the timing is appropriate since Day of Rememberance was on Sunday. Last night I went to see a Holocaust survivor and one thing that sticks out in my mind while reading this article and posts was how the Nazi government began by changing little things at first. Little by little was how people were rounded into the ghettos, then the transports going out to the countryside, and eventually into their deaths. We have to remember how it all begins. As Americans we have inalienable rights that should never be given up because in this system of checks and balance taking away any of the measures will tip the scales in the favor of who knows who. Firearms as scary as they might be to some, are necessary. History tells us over and over again that weapons is a necessity when dealing with human nature. As much as we would all love to see peace and the little children grow old there will always be someone who wants the next man's treasure.

For any of you who think that our elected officials respect the constitution, here is a quote from Senator Barbara Boxer's autobiography "Strangers in The Senate."

On page 179, Boxer writes "Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the 'Public Health and Safety Act,' and that's an appropriate name." For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes "Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee's approach will lead to a better America." (funny how she doesn't mention this on her website)

This is what we "gun nuts" are worried about.

"Godwin's Law of the Internets must have a corollary which pertains to discussions about gun control, health care, and immigration...

I'm calling it at 12:08pm, April 13, 2010."
-binky-

Binky: You may have called it this time, but you blew it in major league fashion by missing the Godwin's Law call on the following link:

http://www.independent.com/users/bill...

Read what I posted on April 13 at 9:24 p.m.

I'll let you off the hook this time, but next time I may subject you to scorn and criticism. It is not my job to enforce Godwin's Law...that's your responsibility.

Please excuse my lack of vigilance; policing these internets is teh difficult.

But I've go to call you on your reference to statements made by Barbara Boxer as representative of anything.

Dude, that book is over 17 years old!

Gun laws have changed significantly since '93, and I'd appreciate knowing Boxer's thoughts on gun control now -- or at least in the past 5 years.

I would predict her opinions have evolved due to significant changes in Federal gun control laws.

For example in the '90s (after 1993) we saw the:

-- Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which was the first five-day waiting period for gun sales and established a federal criminal background check system.

-- Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
the "Assault Weapons Ban,"

-- Later the temporary provisions of the Brady Act was made permanent and trigger locks were required on newly manufactured guns.

"I cannot believe the waste of time and energy expended on this issue. I think that the majority of folks, mostly men ( hint hint) " -Noletaman-

Here is something for Noletaman and anyone else who wants to make this a male-bashing issue: http://www.2asisters.org/ (Second Amendment Sisters website)

And for those of you who want to brand gun owners as Rednecks, check out this site: http://www.jpfo.org/ (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership )

Binky: Here is her website, and I could find nothing that addresses that issue: http://boxer.senate.gov/

Furthermore, your comments do not address the point I've made that someone who is in a very powerful position in our government holds these views. For you to say "I would predict her opinions have evolved due to significant changes in Federal gun control laws", or to allude to an abitrary passage of time (17 years) is pure conjecture and does not in any way refute what I've posted.

Wow, this thread really brought out the nuts on both sides. Santa Barbara is filled with weirdos.

Today (and most everyday...) I carried a loaded M4 service rifle with ACOG and 9mm pistol to breakfast, lunch and dinner... So did all 92 of my closest pals. Funny...no one feels threatened or out of place and no one complains about "open carry". After reading these comments I feel safe, safe and at peace in my current environment.

Barbara Boxer has a CCW permit. Gotta be a celebrity or a politician to get one in California. She just doesn't want "the little people" having one. I guess gun control just means, "I want control over everyone else's guns."

Well Dan,

I am a Californian whose roots predate Statehood.

Prior to May 3, 1967 Open Carry of Firearms was legal, loaded or unloaded. It was not until the Black Panthers marched into the chambers of the California Legislature that the law was changed and Loaded Open Carry was banned without permit but Unloaded Open Carry remained in the Cities.

California was still rural in the 1960’s. As a 12 year-old I carried a loaded handgun every time I got on my horse, daily, to ride from town to the National Forest. We were on our own in those days, no cell phones or other ways to summon help.

I also regularly carried my .22 rifle and a sack of cans down the city streets to the National Forest to plink at cans, of course bringing the shot-up cans back for disposal. If the Sheriff was going by I often got a ride home in their car, beat walking.

Lets see what the civilized people of the East have given California.

The Politicians and New York carpetbaggers were behind the California Water Projects of the last Depression that setup California for an influx of 30 million locusts, people. The Hoover Dam was built and destroyed the Colorado River and Gulf of California as well as cutting off the Colorado River from Mexico.

My prospective is the Civilized People have raped California into a comma for greed and money.

In my lifetime the Abalone beds South of Point Conception, Rock Scallops big as dinner plates, thousands of 500 lb Pacific Sword Fish summering on the backside of Anacapa Island, schools of Bonito, Blue Shark fining all over the Santa Barbara channel, all GONE.

Paradise Lost is the only thing I can say to you. Take your laws and all your Civilization and leave, oh on the way out, please tear down all your dams, restock the species destroyed and drink your Latte back East. If I wanted to live like Eurotrash I would move there but I remember what was Paradise and want it back for my children and myself.

I reject your culture and your mutated view on the U.S. Constitution.

A homework assignment, read “Origins of the Bill of Rights” by Leonard W. Levy

Cowboyup

"Wow, this thread really brought out the nuts on both sides. Santa Barbara is filled with weirdos."
--Pinatubo

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the open-carry proponents posting here don't live in SB. If you Google "open carry", you'll find internet forums where people organize interference efforts like this. Their plan is to make it appear like they represent majority local opinion and to flood posts to disuade discourse (so-called "climate change deniers" employ similar tactics).

I occasionally go up to Winchester and have designed equipment which manufactures small caliber ammo for the US military and many law enforcement agencies. Believe me, many of us who are around small arms for a living do not agree with the open carry fanatics. That includes every one of my buddies in SBPD.

Many of these open carry proponents are ideologically-driven zealots who will never change their thinking, no matter how practical the counterpoint. Their bullying tactics employed in this thread are case in point.

Case in point ...

Look at the rambling flood post from the user "howgreenwasmyvalley". Another newly-registered user posting noise in this thread.

EastBeach: Do you think Boxer's view on gun control goes too far?

Of course the Police only wants their guns to be on the street, but they won't always be there to protect you and sure as hell, they will arrest you for defending yourself.

EastBeach,

Well, I am not in favor of Open Carry as a means of self defense but I do understand it and currently it is the only option open in many California counties. Sheriff Bill Brown sure doesn't issue CCW's which would be my preference for those local taxpayers who wished to protect their own lives. The current MacDonald Case before the SCOTUS, may force States like California into shall issue with a clear and fair definition of "Good Cause" under Strict guidelines instead of how much did you donate to the Sheriff's Campaign.

The rambling, was an sneaky attack at the prejudice of the liberal mindset, liberals are all for the environment but take no responsibility for what they really do to it, liberals are all for Civil Rights only if they are on their approved list, real southern bigots if they aren't, you have to read the code of the ramble. The authors piece was pure BradyBunch Elitism.

Its a slam dunk Open Carry is going down the drain, never was a real option and it may make it harder to carry in the NF, so in reality the Open Carriers done bad for the times. I do understand their frustration but I in no way agree with running around with guns in this City.

The Federal Courts are the only way to rollback 150 years of firearms laws created mostly for racial discrimination.

Yes I am local and yes I am a Libertarian and no we don't need the Wild West but the Bill of Rights to apply equally to all Citizens.

(Part one of two)

OK, so Binky refers to when Boxer's book was written and EastBeach refers to " 'howgreenwasmyvalley'.being a recently-registered user. What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Let’s get back to the subject.

I have pointed out an example of the incrementalist approach to taking away our second amendment rights as demonstrated by Barbara Boxer’s comment. I realize that well-intended people can favor the total abolition of guns--for the citizenry--while the authorities will still have firearms and criminals still manage to get hold of them. How many more seemingly mainstream people in politics think like Boxer and Chaffee? I think it’s a fair question given the emotional responses of some of their supporters.

Let's get down to the heart of the matter: there are people who simply cannot separate their party-line way of thinking from the issue at hand so they make reference to gender, political affiliation in the context of pointing out other issues, and in general, trying to get us off topic by pointing out crimes committed with guns.

Sutcliffe's April. 13, 6:48 p.m. post rightly points out how if we disarm our society, women would be helpless to defend themselves. How does the author of this anti-Starbucks letter which started this thread of comments, as well as Binky, EastBeach and others respond to the fact that there is no way the cops can get to some woman's dwelling in time to stop the psychotic ex-boyfriend/ex-husband who is breaking down her door intent on killing her? (Restraining orders don't always stop these guys) By the time the woman gets through to the cops, guess what?...the guy is already inside the building. Can you answer that?

(part two of two)
What about the shop owner who is repeatedly held up, and/or beaten up then robbed? …Call the cops? How does one deal with carjackers…especially the ones who attack the victim whether or not the victim puts up a fight? So you want to disarm the neighborhoods with gangbangers?...sure, then the gangbangers can rule the roost with their baseball bats, knives, and hands and feet while the rest of the people live in terror of these young thugs.

Honorable Mention prize goes to Virginia Tech for its proud declaration of being a gun-free zone prior to Seung-Hui Cho going from place to place on that campus gunning down person after person. Imagine if even 5% of the people on that campus had been armed how many lives could have been saved...or do you people think that so much of our society is violent that even such a small number can't be trusted to own guns?

By the way, there is a local radio talk show host named Paul Berenson who is a self-described progressive Democrat yet he has made it absolutely crystal clear that he is pro-second amendment based on his distrust of the abuses of government. While Paul and I may differ in the fact that he is a Democrat and I’m a Libertarian, he is an example of a true thinking liberal. I say this to dispel the myth that all Democrats/liberals/progressives can be lumped into one category, and also to point out that not all pro-second amendment people are political conservatives.

By the way, I think howgreenwasmyvalley’s posts are very rational and transcend the emotional polemics of this thread.

Lets take a look at the recent news and see how many people have died of guns-0. How many have died of knives-3. Let's ban all sharp objects now, after all the police don't have enough to do.

By EastBeach's request:

User profile: Major
Joined: April 11, 2010
Comments posted: 5 (view all)

User profile: Jarhead1982
Joined: April 12, 2010
Comments posted: 8 (view all)

User profile: JJH01
Joined: April 12, 2010
Comments posted: 2 (view all)

User profile: gravedigger
Joined: April 12, 2010
Comments posted: 2 (view all)

User profile: sutcliffe
Joined: April 13, 2010
Comments posted: 2 (view all)

User profile: AgainstCowardlyWriting
Joined: April 13, 2010
Comments posted: 3 (view all)

User profile: howgreenwasmyvalley
Joined: April 15, 2010
Comments posted: 2 (view all)

This is getting as bad as that 9/11 Truther thread.

Considering what is going on in Iceland we should worry more about volcano than guns. Pinatubo, could you say something to the volcano in Iceland that's disrupting air travel?

We're pumping out ash to help fight global warming. You should be thanking us.

"We're pumping out ash to help fight global warming. You should be thanking us."

You're right, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Anyone who feels the need to pack heat going in to get a cup of coffee is either completely, totally nuts or compensating for something they feel they are lacking.

Sorry, there's no two ways around it. Guns don't make the world a safer place, even if the person licensed to carry his tells you so.

I've never felt compelled to carry a gun. Even when living in less than safe neighborhoods here and in other countries. I don't think it's about "personal safety" at all. I think it's about personal insecurities.

Gun rights are NOT a god-given legal "right," try reading the US Constitution, Amendment 2.

This will be the only post I make, because it makes me sad.
You're asking people who desperately want to follow the rules of the law to give up something that the law says that they can do. If you told those open carry people to put their guns away and they told you to "Shut the frak up" you'd be angry. Why? because you feel that you should be able to ask them to do that, but they are doing nothing wrong, they are breaking no laws. The Gun laws in major cities are very hard to deal with for gun owners, a measure of trust for them to grant a permit, at least here in NYC.

What the writer is saying is wrong, no laws were broken, and he just wanted to put what he thought were bullies in their place.

I don't see any reason why seeing an openly-carried gun would make you feel uncomfortable. On the contrary, you should worry about the perp with the gun hidden away under his clothes. No criminal in his right mind would be carrying a gun openly, because this draws attention to himself.
Someone carrying openly is not putting you at risk; he is putting himself at risk: at risk of getting shot at by a criminal (or even by police, who mistake him for a criminal), and at risk of harassment by uninformed law enforcement.

It's for these reasons that I always cover up my gun when out in public. But I certainly don't mind young upstarts coming into my starbucks carrying openly. It actually makes me more comfortable knowing that if a perp were to come in and shoot someone, it would probably be the dude with the big gun on his hip, not me.