Imagine you are enjoying your butterburger when a group of men walk in with guns on hips. Are you going to just go back to your meal, or are you going to be worried about the gang's intentions? I'd high-tail myself out of there.
Last week, the customers of Madison's East Side Culvers were faced with this exact dilemma. A 62-year-old woman called the police because she was uncomfortable. When they showed up, the men were asked to provide identification to prove they were not felons. Two refused, and they were later cited with disorderly conduct.
From the initial disturbance to the eventual response of open-carry advocates across the state, the whole situation shows the poor approach gun lobbyists take.
The five men who showed up at the Culvers should have thought twice about their location. When people go to Culvers, they expect to eat at a family-friendly restaurant. By coming in with guns, they created a uncomfortable situation for parents and their children. Though they do have the right to openly carry their firearms, they should consider how their weapons would affect the average family's restaurant experience.
Just having the right does not mean that it needs to be exercised. Law-abiding citizens use guns for personal security and recreation. The men wouldn't be using their guns for those reasons at Culvers, where the greatest danger is a heart attack.
After the incident many organizations came to the defense of the men.One of the saddest comments came from opencarry.org co-founder Mike Stollenwerk. He compared carrying a gun to ""...carrying a carrot down the street, or a cell phone."" That is just incorrect and truly saddening. This statement alters the implication of guns, which are meant to intimidate, hurt and kill. They're not a good source of vitamins; they don't let you call friends. Statements like this that makes it difficult to respect open-carry advocates.
Wisconsin Carry, another open-carry advocacy organization, is planning to sue the city because the men were charged with disorderly conduct. They claim it's illegal to ask for identification without cause. But from a police perspective, there is cause for concern: if police can't check the identification of people carrying guns in public, then what is to stop felons from carrying guns?
The police were just looking out the safety of the public, which is just as important as the individual right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is to ensure people can protect themselves, but if the police are not allowed to protect the public in an orderly manner, then anarchy ensues.
The group at Culvers hopes to desensitize the public to firearms. They want to make open-carry more regular and ""less threatening,"" according to a Wisconsin State Journal report. The last thing this nation needs is more desensitization to devices solely meant to kill.
Guns, and the people who fire them, are responsible for thousands of deaths each year. America has one of the highest firearm murder rates in the world. If gun-rights activists are unwilling to address this, they will have a hard time ever convincing people to loosen gun restrictions.
Pro-gun organizations seem to worry more about their own agendas than public safety. Why is carrying a gun in Culvers important? It's not.
If they feel like it is so very important to carry a gun, they should do so appropriately. Limit it to a private residence, business or location of another open-carry advocate.
Like many constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is not absolute. There should also be common-sense limitations. Exercise the right at appropriate times, like when your house is being robbed, you are being attacked or you are in danger. But when you are trying to get a burger at a family restaurant, don't bring the glock, unless you plan on shooting the cow yourself.
Matt Beaty is a sophomore majoring in mathematics and computer science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com
