Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I knew it had to come, after the (i wont say pro, so maybe non-anti) article they did on our OC outing they had to come back with a good old stab.

LINKY

Packing heat: In the city, a big iron on your hip is a bad idea
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 11/19/2007 07:09:00 PM MST

Utah law does not specifically prohibit someone from strapping a handgun on his belt and carrying it openly in public. Some gun-rights activists are driving home that point by packing in plain view.
This is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.
First, Utah law does prohibit most people from carrying a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle, on a public street or in a posted, prohibited area. Exceptions include law enforcement officers and people with concealed-carry permits.
Under the law, a gun is considered loaded when it has an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing position, or when a single movement of the gun's action would cause it to fire.
So, we assume that someone can legally carry an unloaded pistol on his hip or a rifle on a street. But we wonder why anyone would do that out of bravado or to make a point about gun rights.
Because the purpose of carrying a weapon at the ready in a holster presumably is self-defense, that utililty is undermined by having it unloaded. Carrying a loaded concealed weapon and a permit would make more sense.
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend. Though you know that the gun you are carrying is not loaded, in most cases someone else can't tell that without examining the gun.
Second, packing in public scares other people. Unless they know you and are familiar with guns, most people will not be comfortable seated next to you in a restaurant if you are openly displaying a sidearm. Imagine the reaction of a clerk in a convenience store if you walk in late at night with a big iron on your hip. Even if you mean no harm, how is the clerk to know that?
As is often the case, context is everything. Many folks in rural areas wouldn't think twice about a hunter in camo and orange carrying a high-powered rifle into a store during deer season. But armed civilians on city streets or at Chez Maurice are something else.
We don't want to make life more difficult for hunters. But if Utah law is unclear about packing in plain sight, maybe the Utah Legislature should clarify it to prohibit the public display of firearms except in the field.
The existing law, together with a little common sense, is reasonable. But to make a dubious point, a few extremists could put an end to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
My favorite parts are
1. The title: Nothing starts a fair and balanced news article like "Is a bad idea"

and

2. The last sentence: "But to make a dubious point, a few extremists could put an end to that."

I didn’t know that by obeying the law and eating dinner as a group with the same interests we were "extremists"

(note the same wording is currently used in the media to describe Islamic terrorists) :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
xmirage2kx said:
1. The title: Nothing starts a fair and balanced news article like "Is a bad idea"
It's an editorial, not a news article, and thus doesn't have to be "fair and balanced" since it states the newspaper's position on an issue; by definition, an editorial isn't "fair and balanced".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Car Knocker said:
It's an editorial, not a news article, and thus doesn't have to be "fair and balanced" since it states the newspaper's position on an issue; by definition, an editorial isn't "fair and balanced".
Still, when the 'position' of a supposedly reputable news source is so clearly biased, misinformed, misguided, and vitriolic it's hard to give it much credence. While I'm not surprised to see this published, I'm very disappointed to say the least. Luckily, I don't have to sit around and read such biased drivel - I just cancelled my three subscriptions to the Trib. Good riddance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
I cancelled my subscription when NAC went from "on my porch" delivery to "end of the driveway" delivery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
I read this article too, the day after such a good post was done on us. This article was nothing but pure tripe to deceive the masses. But then again, what can we expect from the Tribune, or any newspaper, really. This piece was an embarrassment to whomever the writer was as there was no attempt what so ever to speak the truth, only to propel the lies to the dim-witted and uneducated. What ever happened to unbiased reporting--even an opinion piece ought to at least have some truth, or legitimate statistics to back it up. There was none of this. :cry: :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Cinhil said:
What ever happened to unbiased reporting--even an opinion piece ought to at least have some truth, or legitimate statistics to back it up. There was none of this. :cry: :oops:
I agree. While I'm not trying to change the subject, last night my wife and I got into a discussion about this very issue but this time regarding that idiot Michael Moore. We both wanted to see his new "Sicko" but have refused because of how dishonest he was in "Bowling for Columbine". She said she had made a statement to that affect to some of her co-workers and her boss said "well, it's a documentary -- it's ALWAYS going to be subjective". It's sad when people think being subjective means outright lying.

What Moore (and many editorials) do isn't biased REPORTING, it's biased LYING.

Being that I am a Return Missionary, Sealed in the Temple, Served 6 years in the military, have what most in this state (including myself, to some degree) would deem "Right Wing Radicals" for parents, have determined myself to no longer be a Christian, and am still married to an active Mormon: I think I know something about respecting other peoples views and positions regardless of how different from mine they might be. If I have learned a single lesson in life it is how to be tolerant. In fact, I *LOVE* and actually *THRIVE* on learning what people different than me believe in.

Moore and like-minded editors don't have a different view -- what they have is a political agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
bane said:
Moore and like-minded editors don't have a different view -- what they have is a political agenda.
+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend.
When was the last time a criminal carried a handgun openly in a holster? Criminals either come into a place waiving the gun around and making threats or stuffed in their belts. Criminals don't spend money on holsters.

I'm not the expert on this, but it seems like a responsible-looking citizen with a gun responsibly holstered at his or her side is a pretty good sign of intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,080 Posts
I wont be reading their paper anymore because of this stupid article. As a side note, did you know that Fox 13 sent Sandy Reisgraf to Front Sight for the Uzi class (Don't quote me but I saw a breif video of her there shooting an Uzi). Maybe we need to see if she would be willing to do a story some time....Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Strategic Tactical said:
I wont be reading their paper anymore because of this stupid article. As a side note, did you know that Fox 13 sent Sandy Reisgraf to Front Sight for the Uzi class (Don't quote me but I saw a breif video of her there shooting an Uzi). Maybe we need to see if she would be willing to do a story some time....Just a thought.
The paper is already 12-24 hours outdated by the time you get it anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
doconix said:
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend.
When was the last time a criminal carried a handgun openly in a holster? Criminals either come into a place waiving the gun around and making threats or stuffed in their belts. Criminals don't spend money on holsters.

I'm not the expert on this, but it seems like a responsible-looking citizen with a gun responsibly holstered at his or her side is a pretty good sign of intent.
This is so true;

"CONCEALMENT.

The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, "most often a female companion." None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon."
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/de ... ?serial=62

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Tarzan1888 said:
doconix said:
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend.
When was the last time a criminal carried a handgun openly in a holster? Criminals either come into a place waiving the gun around and making threats or stuffed in their belts. Criminals don't spend money on holsters.

I'm not the expert on this, but it seems like a responsible-looking citizen with a gun responsibly holstered at his or her side is a pretty good sign of intent.
This is so true;

"CONCEALMENT.

The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, "most often a female companion." None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon."
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/de ... ?serial=62

Tarzan
come on now, since when did FACTS mean anything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Great link, Tarzan. I especially liked the study finding that said:

"WEAPON CHOICE.

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."
This just goes to show AGAIN that gun control will not work because it doesn't "control" guns from criminals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend. Though you know that the gun you are carrying is not loaded, in most cases someone else can't tell that without examining the gun.
If by merely presenting myself in the vicinity of a cop while OC'ing this guy thinks I run the risk of being shot, then the natural thing to do is carry 2 firearms and body armor to protect ourselves! :D
Forgive me for being harsh, but this Idiot needs to think about what he is saying, he is insulting the various police departments in Utah by comparing them to murderous criminals who would shoot someone without regard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
+1
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top