Carry a rifle in public?

[MacFromOK]

Either way my point is you see these dogs all the time now in places and no cares about them or that I am allergic to dogs. So it is possible we could see people strolling around in the future with long guns and people don't really think much about it. My guess is no one is auditing how people treat support animals.

My guess is that nobody else is gonna compare dog allergies to carrying a rifle in public.

No offense, maybe it's just me...

 

[druryj]

In general, I would carry a rifle in public if I needed to do so. Unless I was going to the range, or hunting, I would have to have a compelling reason to arm myself with a rifle and go out and about. If there was great civil unrest, for example, I would be more likely to gather my loved ones around me and defend in place.

 

[Glock 40]

My guess is that nobody else is gonna compare dog allergies to carrying a rifle in public.

No offense, maybe it's just me...

Trust me no one gives a #$^% about my allergies including my insurance company. I wasn't comparing dog allergies to carrying a rifle in public. I was saying that things that weren't common place before, like dogs in businesses is now common place. So it is possible carrying long guns at the park could become common place in the future. Lots of stuff that wasn't okay when I was kid is now mainstream.

 

[Ethan N]

In general, I would carry a rifle in public if I needed to do so. Unless I was going to the range, or hunting, I would have to have a compelling reason to arm myself with a rifle and go out and about. If there was great civil unrest, for example, I would be more likely to gather my loved ones around me and defend in place.

Agreed. In fact the main reason the idea of civil unrest keeps coming to my mind is because some might need to go out in order to gather their loved ones. Once you get everyone in one place, there shouldn’t be any other reason good enough to go out. You’ve all got enough food and water you won’t need to head to the store, right? Sorry. Forgot we’re not in Prepper’s Corner.

 

[MacFromOK]

Lots of stuff that wasn't okay when I was kid is now mainstream.

Right back at ya. Lotsa stuff that was mainstream when I was a kid is no longer okay today.

Seriously, no offense. We're all (hopefully) on the same team here.

 

[dennishoddy]

I need some more understanding on the bill coming in November. Early versions had carrying a long gun in public, LOADED, was only for LEO, off duty LEO in their personal vehicle, court appointed folks, and that was it. Everyone else had to carry long guns unloaded which created a special class of gun bearers. I posted that on here in the past with the bill, and I'm too lazy tonight to search for it.
So, does the new bill that will become legal in November allow LOADED long guns to be openly carried?

 

[Ethan N]

Everyone’s bringing up good points here, but just to make sure we don’t accidentally let this thread drift off into a rehash of the all-consuming conversation of the past week, how about we try to limit ourselves here to commentary on our votes, suggesting other answers that weren’t included in the poll, etc.

 

[MacFromOK]

how about we try to limit ourselves here to commentary on our votes, suggesting other answers that weren’t included in the poll, etc.

My only suggestion is that checking the first option should exclude checking the others, since it includes all the pro-carry options anyway. And there's no way to tell whether folks checking the other options agree with the first option or not if we check every option we think is right.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ethan N]

Yeah, but that's the kicker...

Let's say 3 folks agree with the first choice, and 3 others only agree with carrying in a vehicle.

If 3 folks agree with the 1st choice (which covers vehicle-carry) and also check the vehicle-carry, and 3 folks only agree with vehicle-carry... then you show 6 agreeing with vehicle carry and only 3 agreeing with the first choice.

Sounds like the definition of skewed to me.

I was thinking the results of each option would be the total of people who support that one thing, not to the exclusion of any other options. I.e. if someone agreed with option 1, it’s also true that they agree with vehicle carry, so your example of 3 people agreeing with option 1 and 6 agreeing with vehicle carry would be accurate. But I can see how it could look skewed if it appears that the count for vehicle carry is the number of people who only agree with vehicle carry. I like the options the software gives for setting up a poll, but in this case I guess there just wasn’t a way to set it up to allow for voters to have the flexibility to choose any combination they want but still have the tallies make sense. For example, I wanted to allow someone to choose personal property, in their vehicle, and in rural areas if those were the only three they agreed with.

 

[Ethan N]

My only suggestion is that checking the first option should exclude checking the others, since it includes all the pro-carry options anyway. And there's no way to tell whether folks checking the other options agree with the first option or not if we check every option we think is right.

Just my two cents.

Well, you can see who voted for what. So you could compare to see who checked the first option and all the others. But that would be more tedious the more votes there are.