Recently, a fitness club member was involuntarily committed to a mental health institution for a psych evaluation when he was found carrying concealed firearms at his gym. Initially, the cops were called to address an employee who felt she was being harassed by the man. However, after questioning him, the officers found the concealed firearms in his gym bag, which resulted in his mandatory mental health evaluation.
Reading about this news story made me think about how those who choose to concealed carry have an additional responsibility to, if possible, avoid conflict while they have their CCW on them. The gym where this man was accused of harassment already had a negative history with angry men with guns; one night four years prior, another man—George Sodini—had showed up to one of the aerobics classes at this gym and fatally shot three women before killing himself as part of a long-held grudge against the female gender. One might argue that our nameless gym goer’s first mistake was in bringing firearms to a location with a negative firearms history like that, but that’s a subject for another day. Where this man distinctly could possibly have avoided trouble, even with concealed carrying, is if he hadn’t involved himself in conflict with the gym’s staff.
Getting into an argument or other conflict takes on a different hue when one of the participants has self defense tools, such as firearms, on their person. This disgruntled gym patron became a greater perceived threat once the police discovered he was armed. George Sodini’s attack at this fitness center likely colored the employee’s perception of men with firearms on the premises, but the same concept applies to other places without that particular history. Because of the capacity for harm of which a person armed with guns is capable, an altercation has a greater potential to escalate to the lethal level.
Source: abcnews.go.com
Featured image courtesy of amazon.com
The lack of detail on the harassment complaint puts this into a questionable category. Was it that he was dissatisfied with the gym and/or staff? Did he make a pass at her and she was some sort of feminist on a crusade? Was she hot and he was always looking at her as she passed by? Was she having a bad day and took a comment the wrong way? Did he have a bad day(s) and act passive-aggressively?
That makes a world of difference on conflict avoidance.
I can be the nicest person in the world, but normal interaction can be interpreted in different way by another person. I can growl at a clerk because they didn’t turn the two people ahead of me away with 40 items in the express line and I’m on a tight schedule. It is a momentary irritant that just got my hackles up right then, but an overzealous manager, security, or even the clerk can cause this.
That he had his legally concealed carried handgun in his gym bag was an adjunct. But without any idea what caused the complaint we don’t know the validity of the conflict avoidance strategies.
This brings up several points which deserve discussion, but I lack enough information to comment. I will have to look into this particular case.
As for the main point, we absolutely have increased responsibility to avoid and deescalate conflict when you are carrying a gun. The presence of the gun increases the seriousness of the consequence of conflict, and thus also needs to increase the restraint shown by the carrier.
Jim P.Thanks for joining the conversation. I think this article speaks to a simple truth that you allude to as well. The unfortunate, simple truth is that, given a myriad of possible scenarios we may face on a regular basis, it is impossible to avoid all conflict. A detailed analysis of a background investigation may bear key insight into the specifics of their interaction, but even without that, this event can serve as a reminder that carriers of firearms bear an additional responsibility to at least attempt conflict avoidance whenever and wherever possible and appropriate.
FateofDestinee I can agree that conflict avoidance is always the most desirable but there are irrational people who will try to “change the rules” as I alluded to here.
If I have a tire go flat on the side of the road and go to change it, and mistakenly take off the jacket that normally covers my OWB holster. One person passes that is a hoplophobe and then calls because I have a handgun on my back and sees it. Did I threaten that person?
How about these cops?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFUVuKRvJAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8Ie2C9Uaw
There is a conflict avoidance standard and an overreaction by the rest of the public. This case sounds more like an overreaction. I have a responsibility to not get into a conflict, but there is a responsibility by both LEO and society at large to realize there are sheepdogs among them, and we may not be obvious.
Again without the details, the psych profile was wrong. But I’m not going say it was a definitive bad.But I won’t definitively say the CCW holder was in the wrong.
I know people at who have been revoked the gun permit just for an argument. One is a friend that came hunting with us, he got permit revoked and guns seized just for an argument with the ex-wife.
Even if you are right, or you are the victim and try to defend yourself, you can get that treatment as a preemptive action. I always try to avoid any kind of conflict for that reason.