Walmart phrased its recent open carry ban as a request, the same as Target and other retailers did after the long gun open carry events in Texas. Such a "request" in many of those businesses that in 2014 were said to have banned open carry have not been enforced in Nevada. I openly carry in Target all the time, from 2014 onward. Even Walmart's door signs say "kindly refrain," a far-cry from the "do not openly carry or you'll be arrested" 30-07 signs in Texas. 

So why does your average Walmart flunky care all of a sudden?

1. Management pressure. I'm just speculating here, but back-channel communications from Bentonville or at the local level may have been to instruct staff to tell open carriers to leave, cover up, or trespass them. So the staff takes it to heart, fearing for their job, and carries out the order, lest their manager find out they "pretended not to notice."

2. Fear/hatred of guns. A lot of Walmart employees in urban are from poor economic backgrounds where they may have had no positive access to firearms. They may think carrying guns is stupid, open carry is bad, believe the news media exclusively, etc. Just your standard person who is ignorant of facts.

3. Afraid of something bad happening and not stopping it. Guilt is a powerful motivator. This is reasonable, yet the average person should be able to tell the difference between an open carrier with a holstered handgun, a weirdo toting an AR-15, or this guy.

4. Wanna be tough guys/exercising power. No offense to anyone who works at Walmart and is reading this, but a standard Walmart position puts your pretty low on the social totem pole of jobs. You have little power or discretion in the world and you know it.

Wanna see this in action? Try ignoring the greeter who wants to paw through your shopping bags on the way out while checking things off on your receipt. Some of them will get really pissed off because they know they can't make you stop or lay their hands on you. The actual selection of who gets checked can even be discriminatory and petty.

Most people like exercising power in some way. For a minimum wage person at Walmart, being allowed to tell people what they can and can't do is validating. As one local gun owner put it on a local forum:

People want to be tough and exercise their powers. Often people make hyperbolic statements to emphasize their opinions or to lend themselves credibility (they think).

5. They aren't smart enough to question orders. Let's face it, most Walmart employees aren't that bright. If you're a Walmart employee reading this, don't get offended, you're obviously smarter than most and have your reasons for working there. A job is job, but then again you know who I'm talking about. There are some people who will jump off a bridge simply because you told them to. So if told, or it is implied they should tell people with guns to leave the store, they'll probably walk up to the killer who there to shoot up the store and tell them to leave, only to be the first to die.

Less dramatically, there are people who will follow 1. (above) and tell people to leave. They just aren't bright enough to look the other way and exercise discretion not to care. 

SB 29, 2003
 
Attempted to ban open carry (“unconcealed firearms”) at certain large events by local ordinance as a response to the 2002 River Run motorcycle gang shootout in Laughlin. Elko passed an emergency open carry ban in response before realizing it was violating preemption laws. Police were divided as it would be hard to enforce while other said it would be helpful and needed. The bill was a blatant attempt to target motorcyclists who were openly carrying.
 
1993
 
“The first three decades of the twentieth century saw the general acceptance of law licensing concealed carry of arms throughout the West and North, and, in a considerably less uniform manner, the licensing of open carry of arms in many states. The turbulent period from 1958-1975 saw state after state abolish one remaining component of the right to bear arms: open carry.”[1]
 
            “The 1970s through 1991 saw a resurgence of awareness of the right to bear arms, and an increasing willingness of some legislatures to make issuance of concealed weapons permits non-discretionary.”[2]
 
AB 171, 1993. First "shall issue" bill. First instance of NRS 202.3673 language
 
“In 1985, the National Rifle Association declared as one of its goals a dramatic change of concealed weapon permit issuance laws, on a state by state basis.”[3]
 
            “During this period, a shift to the political arena top protect the right to keep and bear arms—perhaps assisted by the increasing recognition of these rights by various state courts—led to significant liberalization of the concealed weapons permit statutes in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.”[4]
 
right to carry laws
FL 87, GA 89, ID 90, ME 85, MS 90, MT 91, OR 90, PA 89, VA 88, WV 89[5]
 
1983
 
AB 259/SB 259? (1983), introduced by Nevada District Attorney's Association, sought to: Would have made a concealed weapon, not visible in the vehicle such as in the glove box, purse, case, or back, a misdemeanor. Stems from the shooting of a Reno police officer by a man with a gun in the glove box. "Thankfully, the officer was able to kill the gentleman before things got out of hand," said Washoe Deputy DA Hymanson. Worried about having to open carry long guns when leaving the car parked and alarming the public.[6]
 
1981
 
AJR 6, 2A for NV amendment,
 
Apparently, "bear arms for security and defense" was dropped because "it could result in 'just about every brother within these borders (being) able to interpret it to mean he can go out and strap on a weapon,'" said Senator Joe Neal.[7]
 
1973
 
AB 665 (1973) made sheriff-issued CCW valid statewide, signed into law
 
1965
 
48 hour waiting period for a handgun.
No sale without being personally known by the dealer or having sufficient ID to show Nevada resident for six months.
No sales to minors without a parent's signature and anyone under 14 must be supervised by and adult when handling a firearm.[8]
 
First proposed
 
Required judge, sheriff, or police chief to issue a CCW permit valid for one year within 30 days
Sponsored by Assemblymen Gibson and Close
AB 528 1967 Zelvin Lowman of Las Vegas
 
Provided: "every person has the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of his home, his person, and his property, or in aid of the civil power when lawfully summoned to do so, or for any lawful purpose."
 
Exempted concealed carry and prohibited persons.
 
2-4-65 Nevada State Journal, pistol purchase licensing SB 93, apply for police permit, 72-hour approval time
 
“One possibility was the dramatic decline in murder rates in the U.S. from the end of Prohibition until the 1960s. Law-abiding people who are not afraid of criminal attack do not generally insist on a right to carry a gun, either openly or concealed.”[9]
 
1959
 
SB93 (1959), added switchblades to CCW law, signed by Gov. Sawyer
"Those knives are more dangerous than a man with a pistol," said Reno Police Chief T. R. Berrum.[10]
 
1955
 
AB 101, 2-24-1955, concealed weapon violator registration bill sent to governor
AB 378, adds federal felons to prohibited persons, 1955, to governor
 
1951
 
AB 73 Houssels, clarifies CCW a misdemeanor, 1951
 
1935
 
Assemblyman Phillips proposed a purchase permit for handgun purchases, 1935
Passed out of Assembly
 
1933
 
AB 232, Dunseath, make CCW a misdemeanor, 2-27-1933
 
1931
 
Assembly bill, Uniform Firearms Act for Nevada, 1931 Assemblyman Alward, AB 188
 
1927
 
Senator Scott of Lincoln County supported Uniform Firearm Act in 1927, said he would introduce a bill
 
1925
 
Scott alien firearm bill, prohibited aliens and felons, 1925
SB 25 (1925), alien gun bill, passed from senate
Apparently passed in 1925
 
Assemblyman Eddy pledged to proposed a law to ban alien possession of firearms, blaming most gun crimes on foreigners.[11]
 
1921
 
1921 Alien gun bill, Assemblyman Piercy of Nye County, cited numerous murders by non-citizens[12]
Didn’t pass? Game warden suggested a law. Nevada State Journal. Aug. 6, 1921. p. 8
 
The editor of the Tonopah Daily Sun wrote:
 
“...the foreigner is a more dangerous man with a gun than the average American who carries one. When the foreigner carries a gun he has blood in his eye and means to kill someone who does not think as he thinks or against whom he has some idle and fancied grievance. The American carries a gun oftimes out of mere habit and does not always have his victim marked for death.” Tonopah Daily Sun, Feb. 2, 1910.[13]
 
Slavs discriminated against, accused of idleness and not contributing to the success and wealth of Tonopah, with relations further hampered by a depression in 1907. Foreign-born workers accepted less pay and as a result, dominated mining work, displaying native-born miners.
 
“Do gun laws reduce violence? Homicide was lowest in the early 1900s, when few such laws existed. Most states and some cities passed laws regulating purchase and carrying of handguns in the 1910s and 1920s, but homicide and suicide tended to rise despite this. It seems that it was not only fear of crime that led to passage of these laws, but fear of immigrants, union organizers, and ‘reds.’”[14]
 
1913
 
Declared “unlawfully” carried weapons, except by peace officers, those traveling on trains or public conveyances, or those with permission from the county commissioners, to be a nuisance and allowed the confiscation and destruction of said weapons. No distinction between concealed and openly carried weapons.
 
1907
 
2-22-1907, Senator Locklin introduced bill to repeal CCW law, as "better class" was being assaulted by "ruffians". [15]
Bill failed.
 
1905
 
1-31-1905, bill passed Senate making concealed weapons a felony.
SB 3, 1-21-1905, CCW, Lord
Repealing CCW law, passed from senate
Sponsor? Senator Williams, Churchill County
Assembly did not wish to repeal the law, but wanted a replacement first, so it appears not everyone was on board with the penalty.
AB 48, Ingalls, made penalty and/or, not mandatory both, passed assembly
 
“Several Senators spoke upon the measure and the burden was that owing to the unsettled conditions here and the large influx of population bringing many undesirables. It was almost necessary for citizens in certain, localities to carry a concealed weapon. When the bill passed to third reading and the final vote, under suspension of rules, the measure carried by a unanimous vote." [16]
 
"District Attorney Lothrop of Lyon county, who drew up the bill passed two years ago assures The Journal that if the present law is repealed, a more stringent law will be passed two years hence. He advises the defeat of the present bill and states that papers of the State should urge good citizens who desire to carry a weapon to apply for permits to County Commissioners.[17]
 
Opponents in the Assembly wanted the existing penalty softened to allow an alternative of a fine or imprisonment.
 
"District Attorney Lothrop of Lyon county, who drew up the bill passed two years ago assures The Journal that if the present law is repealed, a more stringent law will be passed two years hence. He advises the defeat of the present bill and states that papers of the State should urge good citizens who desire to carry a weapon to apply for permits to County Commissioners.[18]
 
"[Governor Folk of] Missouri who is presumed to be something of an authority on crime and its prevention, has just sent a special message to the Missouri legislature recommending the passage of just such a law as Nevada is contemplating the repeal. In his recommendations Governor Folk makes the statement that fully three-fourths of all crimes committed in St. Louis last year are directly traceable to the pistol carrying habit, and that prosecutions growing out of this practice costs the state of Missouri $100,000 every year."[19]
 
"The law has proven useful in other ways. It is now possible to hold men arrested on suspicion of a graver crime when found in possession of a deadly weapon, when it would be difficult at the time to secure sufficient evidence to hold for trial on another charge."[20]
 
SB 3 mirrored by Assemblyman Ingalls AB 18.[21]
 
"It is now against the law of the State for any one to carry a concealed weapon, either a knife or a gun. Any one violating the law lays himself liable to a fine of not less than $20 and not more than $500.”[22]
 
1903
 
1903 bill written by Lyon County DA Lothrop. He did not support the felony provisions.[23]
1903, fine $20-500 AND 30 days to 6mos, Stats. 1903 c. 114 PASSED
AB 51, 2-10-1903, CCW by minors, Judd
AB 95, 3-11-1903, Whitacre, all persons
 
1893
 
1893, AB 102, concealed weapons in cities and towns. Assemblyman Locklin, Storey County. Passed out of Assembly. Nevada State Journal of March 3, 1893 said it applied to “school children.”
Locklin, AB 102, 1893, school-children


1887
 
SB 82, prohibits concealed weapons in public places, “laid on the table” in Assembly
 
1885
 
Williams, SB 108, 2-18-1885, concealed weapons possessed by minor, approved by governor, 3-2-1885
Sen. Williams SB 108, 1885 minors CCW bill
 
1883
 
1883 legislature banned minors from carrying guns? Nevada State Journal. March 11, 1885.
 
Carson City boys between 12 and 17 carried concealed dirks and pistols. This practice was blamed on "dime novels." Carson Appeal in Nevada State Journal. July 28, 1882
 
1881
 
Assembly bill, CCW, 2-11-1881, defeated
Sec. 345, Use of firearms by minor
Approved March 1, 1881, amended 1885 (SB 108)
1881 Senate concealed carry bill defeated, 2-11-1881
AB 76 of 1881 (CCW) failed to receive a majority vote. Assemblyman Haines?
1881 minors bill, Assemblyman McGowen, AB 155
 
1871
 
SB 93 1871 seems to have repealed the earlier concealed weapon law
Concealed weapon law was repealed in 1871 was it was impossible to enforce.[24]
 
1869
1869 Statutes
 
1869 repeal bill, Senator Doolin
Assemblyman Gray proposed to re-enact and enforce the act (AB 4 or AB 14)
 
"ingenious lawyers" in Virginia City "had construed the word 'travelers' so as to include persons from Gold Hill visiting Virginia [City]." Sen. Adkinson opposed exempting travelers.[25]
 
Sen. Tennant knew the law was "hardly enforced" in Lander County. Sen. Woodworth, former sheriff of Humboldt County, stated that his county regarded the law as a farce.[26]
 
"An act to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons [It is more stringent than the present Law on our Books]. After its third reading Mr. Cleveland moved to recommit the bill with instructions to amend by striking out the words '30 miles' where they define the word 'traveling.'... Mr. Cleveland said it would operate harshly on that class of business men who had mills a short distances from towns and who frequently carried large sums of money with them.
"Mr. Adkinson said that was no argument in favor of the proposed amendment. If the class referred to were liable to carry their weapons for protection in sight; let them buckle on their six-shooters and carry shot-guns on their shoulders. If the amendment prevailed it neutralized the intent of the bill.
"Mr. Cleveland said that the suggestions of Mr. Adkinson were absurd. For a man to buckle on a six-shooter or carry a shot-gun would be like attaching a placard to his back giving the road agents notice that he was carrying treasure. He would be as willing to carry a sack of flour as a revolver strapped to him."[27]
 
Mr. Wright "wanted the right to carry weapons for his defense when travelling any distance less than thirty miles. He did not feel disposed to place himself at the mercy of highwaymen, when traveling, by voting for the bill."
“Mr. Mills asked to be cited to a single instance where persons carrying concealed weapons, had made them serviceable, when highwaymen had the drop on them. Mr. Cleveland said he had saved his bacon twice through the instrumentality of his concealed weapons.
“Mr. Tennant: 'I rise to say that I pity the people that are here to have laws made for them by this House hereafter, as it had now left us to the mercy of highwaymen.'"[28]
 
The concealed weapons Assembly bill, in part, because "its provisions offered undue and improper inducements to constables and peace officers to arrest persons for suspected violations of the law." Senate proposed a substitute bill.[29]
 
A traveler was required to be on a journey of distance. For instance, a ten mile requirement was reduced after 30 was considered excessive.[30]
 
1867
 
Feb (last) 1867, state statute[31]
 
Sec. 1 Every person, not being a peace officer or traveler, who shall wear any dirk, pistol, sword in a cane, slung-shot, or other dangerous or deadly weapon concealed, shall, upon conviction thereof before any Court of competent jurisdiction, be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for not less than thirty, nor more than ninety days, or fine in any sum not less than twenty, nor more than two hundred dollars.
Sec. 2 Such persons, and no others, shall be deemed traveler[s] within the meaning of this Act, as may he be actually engaged in making a journey at the time.


[1] Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State. p. 270

[2] Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State. p. 270

[3] Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State. p. 267

[4] Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State. p. 267

[5] Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime.  University Of Chicago Press. 2000. p. 43

[6] Adler, Lee. "New gun bill could pose some unsettling problems." Reno Gazette-Journal. March 29, 1983. p. 2C

[7] Adler, Lee. "Arms bill advances." Reno Evening Gazette. March 7, 1981. p. 3

[8] "Tough Firerarms Control Bill Offered." Nevada State Journal. Feb. 23, 1965. p. 8

[9] Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State. pp. 193-194

[10] "Set to enforce anti-knife bill." Reno Evening Gazette. April 15, 1959

[11] "Carrying Firearms." Ely Record in Reno Evening Gazette. Nov. 22, 1924. p. 4

[12] "To keep aliens from gun-toting." Reno Evening Gazette. Jan. 20, 1921. p. 3

[13] Kosso, Leonore M. “Yugoslavs in Nevada, Pt. 1.” Nevada Historical Society Quarterly. Summer 1985. p. 82

[14] Stolinsky, David C. “Homicide and Suicide in America, 1900-1998.” Medical Sentinel. Vol 6, No. 1. Spring 2001.

[15] Reno Gazette-Journal. Feb. 22, 1907

[16] "Repealing a Law." Daily Nevada State Journal. Jan. 24, 1905. p. 5

[17] "Concealed Weapon Law Passes Senate." Daily Nevada State Journal. Jan. 31, 1905. p. 1

[18] "Concealed Weapon Law Passes Senate." Daily Nevada State Journal. Jan. 31, 1905. p. 1

[19] "Concealed Weapons." Daily Nevada State Journal. Feb. 9, 1905 p. 2

[20] "Concealed Weapons." Daily Nevada State Journal. Feb. 9, 1905 p. 2

[21] Reno Evening Gazette. Feb. 27, 1905. p. 1

[22] "Against the Law." Reno Evening Gazette. April 27, 1903. p. 4

[23] "Concealed weapon law passes senate." Nevada State Journal, Jan. 1, 1905.

[24] ???

[25] The Carson Daily Appeal. Jan. 29, 1869. p. 2

[26] The Carson Daily Appeal. Jan. 29, 1869. p. 2

[27] The Carson Daily Appeal. Feb. 2, 1869. p. 2

[28] The Carson Daily Appeal. Feb. 3, 1869. p. 2

[29] The Carson Daily Appeal. Feb. 10, 1869.

[30] The Carson Daily Appeal. Feb. 13, 1869. p. 2

[31] The Carson Daily Appeal. Aug. 13, 1867. p. 3

Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. Hearings. House Ways and Means. 89th Congress. July 1965. Part I.
 
In brief, the proposed legislation would do the following:
(1) Prohibit mail-order sales of firearms to individuals by limiting firearms shipments in interstate and foreign commerce to shipments between federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers;
(2) Prohibit sales by federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers, of all types of firearms to persons under 21 years of age, except that sales of sporting rifles and shotguns could continue to be made to persons over 18 years of age;
(3) Curb the flow into the United States of surplus military weapons and other firearms not suitable for sporting purposes;
(4) Bring under Federal control interstate shipment and disposition of large caliber weapons such as bazookas and antitank guns, and destructive devices such as grenades, bombs, missiles, and rockets;
(5) Increase license fees, registration fees, and occupational taxes under the Federal and National Firearms Acts; and
(6) Provide other Federal controls designed to make it feasible for States to control more effectively the traffic in firearms within their own borders under their own police power.[1]
 
Franklin L. Orth, NRA Executive Vice President, criticized "the flood of castoff military weapons that have been dumped in America, particularly crew served weapons...and 'destructive devices,'" but they did oppose the over .50 caliber cut-off and "sporting purposes" as being too vague.[2]
 
"Such things as mortars, bazookas, and rockets are not 'firearms' within the definition contained in the Federal Firearms Act. They can be, and they should be, controlled by amendment to the National Firearms Act in the same manner as machineguns. The National Rifle Association will support such an amendment."[3]
 
"Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association fully endorses H.R. 7472 as outlined and urges this committee to give strong consideration to this approach to the control of firearms as a material contribution to the President's war on crime."[4]
 
"Mr. Battin:...when you are talking about bazookas, antitank guns, mortars, and such weapons that cannot be used for sporting purposes, you do not include commercial weapons?"
"Mr. Orth: These are not for the sportsmen or used by the sportsmen and they ought to be stopped."[5]
 
The NRA issued a statement at the conclusion of its 1965 annual meeting: "The [NRA] will support [...] legislation to curb the flood of castoff military firearms that have been dumped in America as a result of the adoption of more modern weapons by most countries since World War II."[6]
 
            "However, the administrative power [of the NRA] is vested in an executive director and an executive council, and, in keeping with all organizations of considerable longevity, such councils tend to ultraconservatism. Equally, the influx of new administrative talent is kept to a minimum, for the business of the NRA does not require any particularly large number of policymaking personnel. Conflict in running of the NRA is therefore kept to a minimum. External influences which might suggest that the NRA is not the great white hope of the American sportsman are suppressed with whatever means the NRA can bear in particular cases and the one-party system of the NRA tends to preserve status in a changing world.
            "With this for background, it is not reasonable to suppose that the confidential or secret meetings between representatives or the Secretary of the Treasury, the National Rifle Association, and the Shooting Sports Foundation held Thursday or Wednesday of last week reflected the principle of 'open covenants openly arrived at.'.. These appear to be the facts:
            "Mr. Franklin Orth [NRA executive vice president] and the representative of the Shooting Sports Foundation were told by the administration spokesmen that they had about 5 minutes to make up their minds." Essentially, they could accept the whole of the bad bills "rammed down their throats" or they could compromise. "It did not take 5 minutes for the SSF and NRA people to decide they would lie down and accept this seeming lesser of evils."[7]

[1] Dillon, Douglas. Letter to House Speaker McCormack. March 12, 1965. p. 3

[2] Orth, Franklin L. (Executive Vice President, NRA). Statement on Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. July 19, 1965.  pp. 183, 185

[3] Orth, Franklin L. (Executive Vice President, NRA). Statement on Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. July 19, 1965. p. 193

[4] Orth, Franklin L. (Executive Vice President, NRA). Statement on Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. July 19, 1965. p. 194

[5] July 21, 1965. p. 228

[6] Statement of Joseph W. Barr, Under Secretary of the Treasury. July 12, 1965. p. 33

[7] Edwards, William B. pp. 681-682

Jojo Rabbit is a comedic satire (aren't they all?) of a young boy in the Hitler Youth in 1944-1945 whose imaginary friend is Hitler, which causes problems when the protagonist finds out his mother is hiding a Jew in the attic. You never thought the Nazis could be funny until you saw this movie. 

During the fall over the unnamed German city (fictional, both Americans and Russian overran it, which didn't happen), several unusual firearms are seen. Yes, the usual K98s, MG-42s, MP-40s and Lugers appear, but a few odd gems were mixed in.

The MP 3008 was the German version of the STEN gun, Britain's tubular construction emergency submachine gun. The STEN gun was designed to be churned out in shops with little in the way of machining capability. It was cheap and it looked like it. 

The MP 3008 was not popular with the Wehrmacht because it was cheap, ugly, and not German, though it required far less machining than the intricate MP-40. Ludwig Vorgrimler adapted the British design and moved the left-hand horizontal magazine to the vertical position. It was used in small numbers in 1945 by the Volkssturm, a people last-ditch milita. 

Gerät Potsdam (Potsdam Device)
Interestingly, Germany made direct STEN copies, down to the British markings, for clandestine use. It is said that these copies were so perfect some made it into British inventory without the Brits being any wiser. 

​The Rast & Gasser M1898 was an Austrian revolver that was one of the main service handguns of the Austro-Hungarian army during WWI. It was supposed to be replaced by newer semi-automatics, but demand could never keep up with production. In the hands of a Volkssturm, it is not surprising to see this obsolete revolver being used in a last-ditch attempt to safe the shipwreck of the Third Reich.

Below Ian McCollum of ForgottenWeapons.com talks about and shoots the pistol.

There is one sentence that can elicit a uniform nod of agreement amongst an assembly of citizen carriers: “An armed society is a polite society.” It is an argument in favor of owning guns, it is a supposed statement of fact, it is a wish, it is an expression of desire for an older time; what it isn’t is understood correctly. Far too many gun owners use the expression in ignorance of its original context and do not understand that this statement actually condones senseless violence. In its full context, from science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein’s Beyond this Horizon, it is 

Heinlein’s futuristic world is one where men carry guns and fight duels as in the legends of the Old West and the Antebellum South. Men die over petty matters.

​At the heart of what many citizen carriers and gun owners mean when they utter that phrase is that a society where more law-abiding and responsible citizens carried guns is one where crime is less frequent. Those who would victimize their neighbor do so at a heightened risk of being shot in the act and thus self-preservation compels many to avoid committing violent crimes. Others, who we will look at later, report that carrying a gun forces them to be more polite; not to avoid a duel, but to avoid being painted as an armed aggressor by someone who mistakes or misconstrues impoliteness as hostility.

A lack of understanding about the true nature of honor violence in American history leads to an incorrect belief that an increase in guns correlates to an increase in homicide. This theory is a social misperception dating back to the Old West and Antebellum South where firearms were plentiful and so was killing. What is critical about these times and places was not that guns were present, but the attitudes of men condoned casual violence as a means of social control. Men, in those times as in Beyond this Horizon, killed over words and trivial matters, seldom facing the consequences. While we still murder each other today for the same reasons, society and the courts take a very dim view of using violence to settle interpersonal problems.

Honor violence is responding to an insult or defending one’s intangible self (reputation, personality) by fighting, assaulting the offender, or dueling. It is damage to the ego magnified by anger until it manifests as an outward, hostile act. It can be compounded by social expectations that one who injures another’s reputation (or that of his family/friends) must receive physical remonstration for a verbal or other assault to the other’s personhood.

It is not self-defense. It is seen in the schoolyard by the boy who punches the kid who teases him. In bars, it is a man who decks a drunk over a spilled drink. It is gang members who kill each other over a failure to show proper courtesy (disrespect, or “diss). The justifications can be any rude act or even an accident or mistake that another takes offense to. The response of physical violence is an excessive response to the insult.
How trivial the spark of honor violence can be is seen in the an incident in Beyond where Felix Hamilton, one of the main characters, who has never eaten crab before, accidentally sends a crab leg is he trying to crack into a woman’s drink, soaking her in front of her date.

What we see here is a highly formalized ritual and very stiff, almost ceremonial language. Even in their futuristic world, casual conversations do not contain the level of courtesy use in avoiding the duel. Politeness is central to the ritual and Heinlein’s honor culture. The need for politeness, the backbone of civilization, is exemplified in the excessively formal language. Whereas in our contemporary society, overly formal words can have the effect of seeming insincere and it is the spontaneous heartfelt apologies that do the best at diffusing tense situations.[3]
​
The romanticized version of the Old West gunfight, the walk down, involves the same level of ritual, probably drawing from code duello procedures. The similarities involved in pacing off the distance and the presence of a sidekick or henchman (the seconds) could only be taken from the dueling tradition by writers. It reminds one of two vicious male creates, cobras perhaps, carefully dancing around each other, trying to avoid a fight or get the best position should one begin.

We can feel the same gravity in this standoff, Heinlein himself almost certainly drawing from the Western genre. He understands "the drama is one of self-restraint: the moment of violence must come in its own time and according to its special laws, or else it is valueless.”[4] His honor culture would be immediately familiar to readers in the 1940s and later.

Both men, knowing it was an accident and not desirous of violence, resolve the matter peacefully. Note how Hamilton apologizes first, even as the other man’s hand hovers near his weapon. The other man asks for confirmation before accepting, his eyes still hard with skepticism. Once assured that it was nothing more than a mortifying mistake, the matter drops. But why are the ritualistic aspects of the exchange necessary? The drunk answers that question.

The drunk, totally unrelated to the party who experienced the unexpected crab leg cocktail, is unsatisfied with the outcome. His first comment “Where is your brassard?” refers to the “brassard of peace,” an armband for those that are “armed but immune to attack;”[5] those that don’t wish to fight. The drunk called Hamilton a coward because he apologized rather than escalate the situation into a fight. Hamilton doesn’t match up to the expectation of the drunk man and alcohol made suggesting this seem like a good idea.

The ritualistic settlement of the offense is part of the honor culture of Heinlein’s world. Dueling has class and so the words that go before, or in lieu of, the act must be classy as well. Glib apologizes or excuses lack decorum and may be mistaken as insincere, compounding the insult if unmeant or failing to communicate the sincerity of the apology. The offended party cannot easily dismiss the matter for fear of looking like he was unwilling to defend his honor with his life. Both parties must be clear in what they mean and satisfy each other that ill-intent was lacking and their remorse is genuine. The exchange also shows the watching crowd that both men take their custom of honor and the rules that go with it seriously. To do less would be to prove oneself uncouth or a coward, unfit as to be a gentleman and invite ridicule.

 Even though the men peacefully cleared things up, the drunk felt that Hamilton was a coward. He could have easily challenged the other man for not killing Hamilton, but of course the latter was the one who lost the crab leg. The drunk’s suggestion that Hamilton ought eat in private shows the drunk’s inner conviction that Hamilton is not a gentleman, as the drunk considers himself to be.

Hamilton’s apology factors into this as the drunk assumes what was indeed just an apology for an accident is actually cowardice. The drunk would not have lost his grip on the crab leg and even if wrong, wouldn’t back down from a fight. To his credit, the drunk does not back down and gets shot for his trouble.

The ritual of formalities of the first encounter is intended partially to prevent gunplay. Seeing the matter of honor first acknowledged, then properly addressed, and ultimately resolved in the acceptable way, custom was upheld. Honor and appearances were maintained.

Neither man appears like a coward or insincere. Tradition and culture receive its homage. Society is not scandalized by two men flaunting the rules of gentlemanly behavior. The only casualties were a wet dress, a cocktail, and a crab leg. Had the drunk not been in that condition, he would have realized that no offense was intended, the matter trivial, the issue resolved properly, and kept his feelings to himself.

Besides the negatives of rampant gunfights, death, and injury is that trivializing combat provides an excuse for troublemakers to invent excuses to kill. Legends of the Wild West are replete with stories of bullies provoking men into fighting. Perhaps Heinlein’s drunk wanted to fight and the alcohol made him think this was a good opportunity. Such a culture as this could easily lead to a monopoly on violence where bullies might go around paying lip service to the law to incite barely justifiable grounds to duel.
 
The Wild West
 
The attitude of Old West and the South is summed up by John Wayne, as J. B. Brooks in The Shootist: “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.” Brooks was known as a shootist because he killed men. In the Old West, killing a man who had it coming carried little, if any, stigma and was not discouraged, if almost encouraged, by societal expectations. As in Beyond, in the West and the South, personal offenses to honor, life threatening or not, were affairs men frequently killed over, though not nearly as often as Westerns would have one believe.

These peculiar places in American history bear a striking resemblance to the world that Heinlein has constructed. “American men, especially southerners and frontiersmen, were […] touchy about personal honor, which they were inclined to defend by violent means.” [6] The fights of the average Southerner or frontiersman was nothing at all like the elite’s duels or Heinlein’s rituals. Yet the underlying attitudes that fighting was a convenient way to settle matters was pervasive.

However, in the past of our world, those killed in this kind of violence were not ones who were usually missed. Theodore Roosevelt opined that “Generally every one is heartily glad to hear of the death of either of the contestants, and the only regret is that the other survives.”[7] Men of high social status or wealth in the west didn’t fight like this, the same way today’s elite settles matters in the media or via lawsuit. You will never see Mayor Bloomberg and President Trump squaring off like Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

Heinlein’s culture was similar to elite Southern culture, where a failure to defend one’s honor or accept the challenge to duel, was humiliating and cowardly. In the author’s world, good manners can go a long way to making a duel an unnecessary thing, still the boorish and low-class factors remain. What is there to stop a drunk or man with nothing to lose from challenging a man who would rather not fight to a duel? Good thing that the novel’s Hamilton was a crack shot.

In reality, our society came to the conclusion that some things weren’t dying over. Society lost its tolerance for easy killing and this is what began to reverse the high rates of homicide across the county, primarily in the west. Concealed weapon laws were first instituted to curb honor violence (when racism wasn’t the factor) because far too many men were shooting or stabbing each other with weapons hidden on their persons. Gun control as a form of crime control has its origins going back almost two hundred years, and really reached a fever pitch between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the 20th century.

Much debate has raged over the exact impact that dueling played in these laws. Rather than looking at dueling, we have to look at the broader culture. Even as dueling was outlaws, personal violence over matters of honor continued to rage, but turned from formal events to sudden brawls. In this respect, nothing has changed over time. Rather through the lens of history, the formal duel was simply a high-visibility and formalized aspect of human violence.

I contend that society began to chance and become less violent as both opportunities for violence decreased and legal culture changed. Some scholars would call this the civilizing effect, be it increased responsibilities in the form of marriage, a family, or steady employment. While I think not being a single man in a frontier camp full of men would tend to reduce violence, the other major cause to decrease homicide was a lack of social tolerance.

Women coming west would not appreciate their husbands fighting and killing each other; condoning this could mean the loss of companionship and the loss of financial support if someone is killed, jailed, or hung. As men gained more responsibilities, the risks of fighting became higher. If a man with responsibilities wouldn’t fight, he is going to be more likely to disapprove of others fighting over silly things. In time, the attitude of society is transformed into on that is intolerant of honor violence.

One way to test this hypothesis would be to examine the rise of justifiable homicide laws and jury instructions. From a cursory survey, concealed weapon laws tend to predate laws governing self-defense and justifiable homicide. It was as if lawmakers were experimenting with what solutions to use. In this sense, the experiment of gun control as violence control failed well over one hundred years ago.

Another test would be to correlate homicide rates with the circumstances of each murder. Was it spontaneous violence stemming from an insult? A long-running feud? Or was it a spree killing or for some other form of gain? I theorize that we would see a decrease in impulsive killing as convictions and punishments increased. Additionally court records would support less acquittals on dubious self-defense grounds when it was clear the aggressor provoked the confrontation.

Today is the best proof that the prevalence of guns in society does not cause violence, but rather attitudes. Only in low-class urban (predominately black and Hispanic) drug and gang cultures is murder in the furtherance of honor violence endemic. For a variety of reasons those cultures seem to tolerate it or at least accept it. In America at large, more people than ever are legally packing heat. Our homicide rate is as low as it has ever been. The concealed and open carry wave that began in the late 1980s, incidentally as homicide was sky high, shows that attitudes are responsible for violence, not carrying a gun.
           
Differences
 
Heinlein’s worlds are fantasies. Science fiction often is. This literature is the airing chamber and testing ground for revolutionary ideas. It is a way for authors to explore societal changes and the effect that new technology or discoveries might have on the structure of mankind. In Beyond, we see Heinlein idolize a world where boorishness is punishable by death. We do not see his society congratulating the store owner killing a robber. We see men shooting each other over petty matters.

In today’s culture, even in an environment where many would be armed, such an incident as occurred to Hamilton in the restaurant is more likely to result in extreme embarrassment and laugher from the sheer preposterousness of a crab leg landing in a drink out of the blue. As later revealed in the story, Mordan, the first man who rises against Hamilton and the District Moderator for Genetics, turns out to be a noted quick draw. Mordan did not realize it at the time, but Hamilton was someone he was quite seriously professionally interested in, as a specimen of certain genetic qualities. In Heinlein’s own words, he explains this and his real motivation for de-escalation.

Here Heinlein torpedoes his own hypothesis. Men are allowed to duel over matters of honor in order to overcome a lack of aggressiveness in society. Heinlein lambastes the idea that non-violence is good thing. Then the protagonists admit that fighting without something a valid reason is pointless (that begs the question from the author, what is worth fighting over?). Heinlein even states that self-interest is more important than a fighting spirit.

What kind of point was Heinlein trying to make? Obviously he is saying that valuing passivity over controlled and restrained violence is a bad thing. But in arguing this through his armed, yet polite society, he does a poor job showing how the fighting spirit should be preserved. This is a society that finds boxing to be too brutal!      

The author’s bibliography shows him to be a fan of calculated violence and brutality, but for productive purposes. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein states that the purpose of the Mobile Infantry is to provide precise pressure against an opponent in order to force him into capitulating. We would call this a “surgical strike” today’s military parlance. So the author values restraint and calculated violence, but glorifies senseless attempted murder?

Heinlein partially tries to extract himself from this problem by giving most of society laser weapons that don’t usually seriously injure or kill. Okay, then why not just fight hand to hand? Science fiction is often the author’s a suggestion for an ideal society, so in a way, Heinlein can be accused of justifying gunfights today, which invariably kill. He’s trying to have it both ways.

An analogy with current technology is men going around Tasering each other because the other didn’t hold the door open for the first man’s wife. The argument seems less about encouraging casual violence as a way to maintain man’s fighting spirit (presumably so future generations of capsule troopers have enough testosterone to kill the Arachnids) than it is Heinlein thinks the world would be a better place if he could challenge and cap a rude teenager.
Few today who have uttered the iconic phrase incorrectly today would mean that they would like to wantonly kill people over a failure of manners. One of the objections I have run into over carrying a firearm, especially an openly carried one, is that some people are unable to control themselves. They know that a verbal slight can transform them into a beast who will escalate the situation even to violence. A gun in their pocket becomes a grave liability for them.

These people are wise enough to not to carry or restrain themselves when they do. Others who don’t have such easily triggered tempers are careful not to misbehave or be rude while openly carrying. One reason is optics; a rude open carrier give the practice a bad name. The second is that should discourtesy intensify to violence, the carrier could be considered a provocateur which hinders a self-defense defense in court.

At least murder and violence in reaction to rudeness is very much the exception rather than the rule. In Beyond, the legal considerations an armed citizen faces today don’t exist. Its not murder if the guy had it coming. The author’s trick of changing legal consequences with a total adjustment to what constitutes murder by altering society’s attitude towards killing is a cheap out.  Decriminalizing dueling doesn’t solve the fact that dueling or permanently branding oneself a coward are the only two choices in navigating discourteousness.
​
Heinlein does seems to recognize the problems of his culture taking things too far. Hamilton is concerned about his genius, but socially awkward son who has a habit of correcting people.

Perhaps Theobald might get tired of having to defend himself against men who mistook what very well might be a form of autism and choose to reform society. Surely men who aren’t cowards, but don’t want have to fight over trivial matters to prove they aren’t cowards or etc. would get tired of wearing the brassard.

​The fallacy of men simply accepting their fate as brassarded cowards is stupid and ignorant of human nature—unless aggressiveness was truly magically bred out of men, which I doubt, as choosing the brassard or a gun is a choice. In Starship Troopers Heinlein writes that the disenfranchised civilians never rebelled over the veterans because, though they may be dissatisfied, they are not aggressive (else they would have signed up for federal service).

Once again, I challenge Heinlein’s ideas towards the subservience of men as ignorant of reality. Even enough dissatisfaction, the desperate will acquire aggressiveness through that desperation and revolt against the prevailing order. Eventually, the men in brassards will become tired of being accused of being cowards and will no longer tolerate the existing order and change it. We did this via legal means to curb violence more than a century ago. The shop owner who fought in the Civil War, but refrained from killing his hecklers in the bar, and condemned the bully to hang, was not a coward because he turned the other cheek.

Some might argue that social perception of weakness is all important, as we saw with Southern culture. So why couldn’t Heinlein’s world take a fatalistic attitude towards things and just go with it? In the literary analysis sense, the author is being naïve. Again I will argue that as society sees needless losses over pointless violence, the perceptions of a restrained man as weak will change or that society will be or remain disorganized, weak, and unproductive.

Perhaps this whole book, published in 1942, was a reaction to American isolationism before its entry into WWII, appeasement of Hitler, and the attempt to “end war.” Maybe Heinlein was lamenting the death of the world of his grandfather and indulging his fantasy of plugging rude people. It could be an allegory for the world needing to have the willingness to stand up for itself and peace in the world against small, angry European nations. I’m not sure. We’re really just looking at the iconic quote here.

The 1930s and 1940s were a domestically peaceful time, bootlegging aside. Homicide rates were falling to their lowest in ages, not to be that low until the end of the century. Handgun ownership and especially carry was nearly demonized. In 1934, Congress almost put handguns in the National Firearms Act with machine guns. Perhaps Heinlein was mourning a culture that was able and willing to defend itself.

I’d like to think that in this day and age, Heinlein would be preaching about the virtues of self-defense. Maybe Hamilton would have valiantly defending himself against a mugger after leaving dinner with the reactions of his compatriots supporting the decision to carry for self-protection. Instead I think Heinlein mistook the stories and history of the Old West for something it wasn’t and glorified gunfighting.

In conclusion, an armed society isn’t a polite society, it’s one where crime is risk to criminals, which in turn dissuades them from crime. Dr. John Lott, Jr.’s work has shown that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to crime and does not increase the rate of violence. So let’s think up a better way to say carrying guns isn’t a bad thing, maybe “An armed society is a safer society.” 

​[1] Heinlein, Robert A. Beyond This Horizon. Baen (2011 ed.). 1942. pp. 217-218
[1] Heinlein. [Ibid.] pp. 14-16
[1] I concede that such excessively polite and formal language, seen elsewhere in fiction, may be the author’s exaggeration for literary effect.
[1] Warshow, Robert. The Immediate Experience. 1962. pp. 89-105 in Mottram, Eric. “'The Persuasive Lips': Men and Guns in America, the West.” Journal of American Studies. Vol. 10, No. 1. Apr. 1976. pp. 77
[1] Heinlein. [Ibid.] pp. 17
[1] Courtwright, David T. Violent Land. Harvard University Press. 1998. pp. 3
[1] Roosevelt, Theodore. Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail. 1888. http://www.bartleby.com/54/ Ch. 6, Frontier Types
[1] Heinlein. [Ibid.] pp. 31-32
[1] Heinlein. [Ibid.] pp. 200

One man was wounded and another killed in a defensive gun use in Las Vegas. Police believe the incident was robbery. The suspected robber is dead and the victim is hospitalized. Police do not expect the victim will be charged. [source]

SIG Sauer announced that the Nevada Highway Patrol is switching its duty weapon from the SIG P226R in .40 caliber (a double/single action hammer fired handgun) to the striker fired P230. Striker fired guns are generally easier to learn shoot and shoot well as they only have one trigger pull, while the DA/SA guns have two distinct pulls that often throws off some shooters. Moving to striker fired guns has been a recent trend in departments that have long retained their DA/SA handguns (versus those that adopted Glocks).

To regurgitate the press release:

Not that we think the petition has a snowball's chance, but it can't hurt to sweat the guy a little.

These are just the location that are open most of the week. See the recall website for more locations and times.