Gray Column: Responding to guns on trains article
Published: October 12, 2009
Very seldom do I write about the same issue over a short period of time, but this week I feel the need.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about guns on trains. The focus was the Virginia Rail Express board’s decision to allow firearms on trains in accordance to Virginia law.
My opinion was then and is now that there should be an exemption for the VRE so that they are not required to comply with the law.
That’s my opinion and I am sticking to it. A few people e-mailed me asking for clarification on my opinion.
But additionally, I really felt the need to write something to close this subject out based upon a few other comments.
First, I am not now nor never have been against gun owners’ rights to own a gun. I am all for it, when it comes to protecting life and property.
I just believe that there are places where public safety trumps the desire to have a gun. I know some folks are cringing at that statement, but again, I’m sticking to it.
One example would be at something like a government building. Obviously you can’t just walk into the U.S. Capitol building with a loaded gun. Chances are you would never make it past the front
entrance. Why? Mainly because it puts lives at risk, specifically those conducting government business. If it’s good enough for a public/government building, why shouldn’t it be good enough for a public
train like the VRE.
So before someone misunderstands my opinion, which apparently has happened over the last couple of weeks, I am not against gun owners.
I simply believe that certain rights require a tremendous responsibility not only by the individuals but by our local, state and federal governments by the laws they make and the way those laws are
administered.
With that said, let me move on to my next point.
I am also writing this because of some of the e-mails I received, some nice and some not so nice, about the reasoning of my opinion.
I am always humbled and appreciative when people respond, positively or negatively, to the things I write.
But at the same time we should remain civil in our approach. Some of the online responses and a few personal e-mails got downright ugly and insulting, especially the ones to the folks engaging each
other in the online discussions. I know that for whatever reason when we talk about gun rights issues things get heated, but they should never get insulting.
Fortunately most of the people, when it came to personal e-mails, expressed themselves in a way that made their points but at the same time kept everything “above the belt.” But there were a few.
Not that I am of the authority to chastise anyone for what they say or believe. But as I read a few things, I began wondering if we all had the same goal in mind.
At the end of the day for me, that goal is not to be right.
Rather it means trying to do what’s right by expressing myself in a way that stirs debate and awareness of an issue such that we achieve the four-word goal at the beginning of the Preamble of the U.S.
Constitution: form a more perfect union.
Davon Gray works in Washington and resides in Woodbridge. Contact him at .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Ron,
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you should “go somewhere else” I simply stated to avoid that person. There’s a little difference in that. But, I understand where my comment could be construed that way, but that’s not what I meant.
You’re viewing this from one side of the fence and I’m seeing from the other. Carrying a firearm is not an obsession. That’s a careless characterization. We don’t run around toting our firearms for all to see and admire. But, I can see where it makes some people nervous. For those people, it is a choice to either deal with the uncomfortability or not. Much like anything else that makes people nervous. Crowds, elevators, creepy-crawlies, etc. I find it uncomfortable when I see a group of young men huddled around a car in the middle of a side street at 11pm. But, that’s their right to assemble and it’s not my right to infringe upon their right by asking them to move or go somewhere else.
You keep saying things like “you folks” when talking about those who carry openly or those who legally carry concealed. I think that’s horribly disrespectful and actually shows some distain(sp) for us who think differently than you. WE, as legal gun owners and carriers, DO take responsbility for our individual behaviors. WE can’t control your behavior and we don’t try to. WE don’t try to control the behaviors of other gun owners, because you can’t control another person. You can only interact with them in a responsible manner. Use positive influence to change any unsafe behavior.
We are ALL incredibly inconvenienced by others behaviors on a daily basis. Unsafe drivers, loud talkers, poor behavior and disrespectful/antagonistic people trying to create bad situations. Inconvenience is nothing new. But, smoking is a health issue that effects a large majority of the population. Carrying (openly) a firearm, simply is a matter uncomfortability. It’s not the carrying of a pack of smokes that causes the health problem, it is the USE of that tobacco that does. It’s the same with a firearm. No one has been hurt by a firearm in a holster that isn’t being used.
I respect your position and your right to not own, use or carry a firearm, either publicly or privately. Please respect my right to carry, own and use mine.
Well, to compare exercising my rights protected, so far, by the 2d Amendment, to the filthy vile habit of smoking cigarettes is a new one. Though I do like a cigar once in a while. Ron, your point seems to be that you don’t like something, so we should all bend over backwards to avoid offending you. That is, your solution to your imagined problem is for ME to be inconvenienced because of YOUR obsession. I find that incredibly offensive. Personally, that’s why I don’t carry openly, even though I see folks doing it in PWC all the time. I just don’t want the hassle of some hypersensitive hoplophobe making a scene in public, probably calling 9-1-1 and ruining my dinner. Your last comment, “Second amendment be d%$*ed,“ says a lot. What other parts of the Bill of Rights should we throw out?
45jhp,
“If you see someone openly carrying and it bothers you, avoid that person and that situation. Put yourself close to the nearest exit, be aware of where they are in relation to your location.“
Absolutely not. I should not be inconvienced bcause of someone else’s obsession.
Although I appreciate you and robertf864 actually giving rational, polite, answers, I also note neither of you really answered my questions.
Besides repeatedly making the point that other, non-gun-toting people don’t know the intent of someone carrying around a loaded gun in public, I’ve also been making another point you folks don’t want to hear.
Up until the late 1970’s, people who chose to smoke would do so without regard for the non-smokers around them. I never smoked, and second-hand cigarette smoke really bothers me (still does). I clearly remember being in public places, frequently telling a smoker that their smoke bothered me, with the typical response “Tough. It’s my right to smoke, you don’t like it, go somewhere else.“
Today, there are few places where someone can smoke in public. While I actually don’t like the idea of government getting involved in this issue, I also will do nothing to defend people’s “right” to fill their lungs with toxic smoke because quite frankly, I enjoy breathing non-cigarette smoke filled air. Without government intervention smokers would probably still have the arrogant “don’t like it, go somewhere else” attitude.
45jhp, your respnse to me was pretty much “If you don’t like being around someone carrying a loaded gun, go somewhere else.“ I find this attitude arrogant, and consider it incredibly offensive that I should be inconvienced because of someone else’s obsession.
I suggest that if you gun-toting folks don’t accept that many non-gun-toting people really don’t like being around people carrying guns, history will repeat itself. Right now, the pro-gun crowd is on a high, pretty much getting everything you’all want in the way of eliminating restrictions on running around with firearms. Nothing says that can’t change, and if you folks aren’t willing to accept responsibility for your behaviors, there will come a time when gun laws will change, not to your liking, Second amendment be d%$*ed.
I apologize, I read your question again and you specified they were both carrying openly. Still, if the crime hasn’t occurred yet, I don’t see any rationale for bothering either one of them. Thoughts are not yet a crime.
Well, unless we’re all going to stay home trebmling in fear, then we can take the risk of assuming that the guy sitting quietly with his kids eating pizza and not bothering anybody is probably not a threat, and you don’t know if he’s armed or not. The guy who intends to shoot up the place, but hasn’t done it yet, also can’t be labelled a “threat” until he reaches for the .25 in the pocket of his sweatshirt. Because that would be profiling, and we know that’s just wrong! So unless you or the cop who may somehow just happen to be there is a mind reader, or else trained, as suggested, to otherwise discern intent, then the solution to your dilemma is to either routinely roust everyone in the restaurant because somebody “might” have a beef with someone else in the place, or we all mind our own business. Or maybe one of those “No guns allowed” signs would help.
Ron,
It’s actually a great question. One that I wish I had a perfect answer for. But Alas, we humans are imperfect and therefore can not produce a perfect/foolproof method for anything. It’s not an answer to your question, because there is no answer. Those who wish to harm us keep their intentions hidden until they act. You’ll argue that it’s all the more reason to keep guns out of the hands of anyone except LE. BUT, Can you verify that the person who shot Mr. Brown was openly carrying? One thing that I have learned from my LE friends is THEY are trained to know who is a potential threat and who is not. Facial expressions, body language, how they index, etc. But, as I said before, people are imperfect and are therefore incapable of creating a perfect method for anything. AND even if a perfect method were delivered from the Heavens, we’re too imperfect to apply it correctly.
What YOU and I can do as imperfect beings is to be aware of our surroundings as much as possible. If you see someone openly carrying and it bothers you, avoid that person and that situation. Put yourself close to the nearest exit, be aware of where they are in relation to your location. Know what your plan will be should something happen. Argue if you will that I’m being a little paranoid, but, Always Be Prepared are good words to live by.
Ron,
Define intent. Intent as in people have to read the guys mind or intent as in brandishing his firearm in a way to threaten life?
Obviously, people can’t read a persons minds and the courts have even said that police can’t always use body language as an indicator of intent. So, define intent.
Additionally, your example also illustrates one thing that the ‘gun-owning proponents’ keep stating; that if you are going to break the law (murder) the instrumentality of how you break the law doesn’t really matter. Fists, knives, chairs, bats, feet, and toasters can all be used as deadly weapons. Once the person has made it up in there mind that they’re going to kill does it really matter how they do it?
Do we punish those that strangle there victims more or less than those that use pocket knives? A remote control? A block of wood?
To be more clear, robertf864, and using a current news example;
You have two people sitting in a restaurant openly packing loaded firearms. One is a peaceful, law-abiding citizen who is only exercising their second amendemnt right to carry firearms. The other person is intent on shooting another restaurant patron, the way 25-year-old Curtis Kamau Brown was shot in the KC restaurant last Sunday morning.
How do other patrons, and possible law enforcement present in the restaurant, know who is who without hasseling or otherwise disturbing the peaceful, law-abiding gun carrying person?
This is an honest question, and one I’d really like some gun-owning propoent to answer.
robertf864,
You’re not answering my question, and instead paraphasing my questions into arfuments that justifies your position on openly carrying guns.
I asked how you would keep guns out of the hands of people who only want to use them for criminal activites (randomly shooting people, etc).
I’d also like to hear your thoughts on rapid foolproof methods that law enforcement officers can use to identify people carrying guns that are not a threat, from people carrying gun who are a threat. This would be for the express purpose of NOT hasseling people who’s intentions for carrying guns are peaceful and non-violent; while still being able to stop people from commiting gun-related violence and criminal activites.
Ron, why do “people carrying guns that are not a threat,“ in your words, need to be ID’d at all? If a person jumps through all the government’s hoops to get a CC permit - fills out the forms, pays the fee, fingerprints, background check - why not just leave him alone? As for open carry, if the gun is in its holster and he’s not bothering anyone, leave the guy alone. I don’t understand why, if some knucklehead in DC, or my hometown of Toledo, shoots up a bar, the solution to the problem is to hassle me. I didn’t do it.
Actually, I do understand why - harassing me is easier than taking any serious action against the bad guys.
Advertisement