“Guns not allowed” signs make people less safe

Not just because they create “gun free” zones that can very easily become “free fire” zones.

But because they force people to handle their weapons in public and manipulating a weapon is much more dangerous than leaving it safely in its holster.

For example: this morning I needed to go into a bank that prohibits concealed carry. I was in a vehicle without a lockbox in and I had a passenger. Before I went into the bank, cialis canada treatment I had to draw my weapon, drop the magazine, and eject the round in the chamber. The entire exercise was carried out in the close confines of a vehicle with another person in the car. I left the unloaded weapon and took the rounds with me. When I returned to the car, I repeated the entire process in reverse order. Doing this in the bank’s parking lot was much less safe than it would have been if I had just left the gun in its holster, went into the bank, did my business and came back out.

I did all this as safely as I could – observing all the rules of safe gun handling – but it’s indisputable that the odds of the gun going off once I started manipulating it were higher than if I had just left it alone in its holster.

So by not allowing me to lawfully carry my weapon into their lobby, the bank actually increased the danger to themselves, their customers, and their neighbors.

But, as usual, I doubt logic had anything to do with the bank’s decision to post their sign.

8 comments March 16th, 2012