Open Carry

[Syco21]

With the elections coming up, one of the big issues in Texas at the moment, though not necessarily publicized, is the open carrying of handguns. In Texas it is already fully legal to openly carry a long gun, loaded or unloaded and there is no license for it, mandatory or otherwise. However, it is very much against the law to openly carry a handgun, various individuals and groups are seeking to change this law. They want unlicensed open and concealed carry for Texas.

 

I think that the divergent opinions that can be found in a place like this can be very enlightening. After all, the lot of you are not united based on your love or hatred of guns, nor are you united based on your political slant. Rather you are here for a fairly unrelated interest that you all share. Thus the opinions on this subject should be pretty diverse and therefore enlightening. I find this to be quite an intriguing prospect. So my question to you is as follows:

 

Do you support open carry and why have you chosen the stance that you have?

[ub3rman123]

I don't really. I kind of freaked out the first time I saw some huge redneck walk into a McDonalds with two handguns shoved in the back of his pants.

[TheCalliton]

im gonna report this

the last time this discussion was up, it turned into a flame war, and one of the admins closed mine before it could get anywhere... GUNS FOR THE PEOPLE!

[Vagrant0]

As long as it doesn't degrade into personal drama, Nazi references, nationalistic bickering, and remains civil I'll allow the thread. Don't make me regret it.

 

 

 

That said... my personal belief is that people should be allowed to arm themselves, but only if the situation makes friggin sense that one "should" be armed for their own protection.

 

Times when it's OK to be armed -

When taking public transportation after hours.

When having to pass through an area with a high incidence of violent crime.

When you're walking through an undeveloped area which may be inhabited by dangerous wildlife.

When hunting.

 

Times when it's NOT ok to be armed -

When attending a sporting event, little league or other.

When you have every intention of drinking yourself stupid and passing out in the corner.

When attending a political rally.

When attending school functions.

When going anywhere children are present.

When going anywhere that fanatical individuals are demonstrating.

When going to the bank or any other places with a high tendency for being robbed at gunpoint.

When you're carrying more weaponry than the security officers present.

When driving long distance on the interstate.

When you are not trained to use the weapon.

When you are only wearing it to make a political statement.

 

 

Most of it is just common sense, and most of the problems are because of people who obviously lack that common sense. People who do go armed to places where by all rights they shouldn't, should be stripped of their rights to carry and be charged with public endangerment, even if there is no intention to do harm. All it takes is one crazy person to get the drop on you to turn a lunch hour into a hostage standoff. A weapon should only be worn for personal protection. When in places which are under the protection of official agencies, you should be willing to abide by their terms and identify yourself as a non-threat so that real threats can be identified and dealt with before an incident occurs.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

I live in a state (NJ) that is not very friendly to any sort of carry... or even ownership, for that matter. I do, however, have a concealed carry permit for use when I'm in other states that recognize it, and I legally carry whenever I am able.

 

I understand the reasoning behind prohibiting concealed and/or open carry, but time and crime have proven that restrictions on the lawful use of firearms have done nothing to curb the unlawful use thereof. Put simply, if a person means to commit a violent crime, they've already made up their mind that the law doesn't matter- adding another law is not going to deter them. Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles- all gun-unfriendly cities, and yet there are more shooting deaths in those places than in just about everywhere else in the country put together.

 

There is a very good and logical argument to be made that violent crime is more closely related to population density than the way the laws are written; the correlation is clear. However, gun control laws including prohibitions against concealed/open carry haven't had any positive effect. Indeed, violent crime across the entire nation has been in decline for several years; this trend was not reversed by the Heller and McDonald rulings, both of which deemed the strictest of gun control measures unconstitutional. Concealed Carry in national parks (where state laws permit) also recently became legal, and there was no rise in crime in the parks. Arizona passed legislation permitting unrestricted carry, and there was no increase in violent crime. Texas allows concealed carry by legislators, and blood does not run down the aisle every time someone disagrees with a vote.

 

I hold to the belief that the single best deterrent to crime- of any sort- is the promise of swift and decisive action against the criminal. Police are a reactionary force; rarely are they able to arrive on the scene in time to prevent a crime from taking place... or even to stop it while in progress. They almost invariably respond after a crime has been committed. This is not meant as an insult to the police; they do a valuable job and are instrumental in keeping us safe... but they cannot be everywhere, and they cannot guarantee the safety of ourselves and our families all the time. That is why people need to be able and willing to protect themselves, and the most effective means of doing that is a firearm.

 

The only places where I feel people should not be allowed to carry:

 

- On airliners. Not, mind you, because I believe there is a risk of hijacking, but because of the risk of someone shooting a hole in the plane if they have to use their gun. This is one of those situations where the law can be there to stop a crime from happening, and that's what armed Air Marshals are for.

- Into bars. Mind-altering chemicals and weapons of any kind don't mix.

 

You'll note that I didn't include schools or government buildings on that list. Carry into these facilities is, for the most part, illegal already (with a few notable exceptions), and yet these are still the places where the most horrific shootings occur. Obviously, the law and whatever security was in place didn't stop the criminals from bringing guns inside and wreaking havoc. I believe that teachers and government employees (and I'm including the military in that after the tragedy at Ft. Hood- I wasn't aware it was even illegal for servicemen to carry on bases) should be allowed to carry lawfully in their workplaces specifically to prevent such atrocities, without resorting to the expensive and often oppressive measures which otherwise would have to be taken (metal detectors everywhere, security or police in every hall, random searches... these things damage trust in authority and confidence in self as much as they cost boatloads of money to implement).

 

Otherwise, I support unrestricted carry unless a person has demonstrated that they are unfit to exercise their rights responsibly. In an age where background checks can be performed instantaneously even by officers on patrol, permits are redundant and unnecessary- if you have a record, it's illegal for you to have a gun anyway, and simply running your name through the system can clear that up.

 

My position on the gov't and law enforcement having the ability and authority to perform such checks without probable cause is a whooole other can of worms. Suffice it to say I'm a staunch Libertarian who believes people should be left to their own devices unless they willfully infringe upon another person's rights. ;)

[Vagrant0]

I live in a state (NJ) that is not very friendly to any sort of carry... or even ownership, for that matter. I do, however, have a concealed carry permit for use when I'm in other states that recognize it, and I legally carry whenever I am able.

 

I understand the reasoning behind prohibiting concealed and/or open carry, but time and crime have proven that restrictions on the lawful use of firearms have done nothing to curb the unlawful use thereof. Put simply, if a person means to commit a violent crime, they've already made up their mind that the law doesn't matter- adding another law is not going to deter them. Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles- all gun-unfriendly cities, and yet there are more shooting deaths in those places than in just about everywhere else in the country put together.

 

There is a very good and logical argument to be made that violent crime is more closely related to population density than the way the laws are written; the correlation is clear. However, gun control laws including prohibitions against concealed/open carry haven't had any positive effect. Indeed, violent crime across the entire nation has been in decline for several years; this trend was not reversed by the Heller and McDonald rulings, both of which deemed the strictest of gun control measures unconstitutional. Concealed Carry in national parks (where state laws permit) also recently became legal, and there was no rise in crime in the parks. Arizona passed legislation permitting unrestricted carry, and there was no increase in violent crime. Texas allows concealed carry by legislators, and blood does not run down the aisle every time someone disagrees with a vote.

 

I hold to the belief that the single best deterrent to crime- of any sort- is the promise of swift and decisive action against the criminal. Police are a reactionary force; rarely are they able to arrive on the scene in time to prevent a crime from taking place... or even to stop it while in progress. They almost invariably respond after a crime has been committed. This is not meant as an insult to the police; they do a valuable job and are instrumental in keeping us safe... but they cannot be everywhere, and they cannot guarantee the safety of ourselves and our families all the time. That is why people need to be able and willing to protect themselves, and the most effective means of doing that is a firearm.

 

The only places where I feel people should not be allowed to carry:

 

- On airliners. Not, mind you, because I believe there is a risk of hijacking, but because of the risk of someone shooting a hole in the plane if they have to use their gun. This is one of those situations where the law can be there to stop a crime from happening, and that's what armed Air Marshals are for.

- Into bars. Mind-altering chemicals and weapons of any kind don't mix.

 

You'll note that I didn't include schools or government buildings on that list. Carry into these facilities is, for the most part, illegal already (with a few notable exceptions), and yet these are still the places where the most horrific shootings occur. Obviously, the law and whatever security was in place didn't stop the criminals from bringing guns inside and wreaking havoc. I believe that teachers and government employees (and I'm including the military in that after the tragedy at Ft. Hood- I wasn't aware it was even illegal for servicemen to carry on bases) should be allowed to carry lawfully in their workplaces specifically to prevent such atrocities, without resorting to the expensive and often oppressive measures which otherwise would have to be taken (metal detectors everywhere, security or police in every hall, random searches... these things damage trust in authority and confidence in self as much as they cost boatloads of money to implement).

 

Otherwise, I support unrestricted carry unless a person has demonstrated that they are unfit to exercise their rights responsibly. In an age where background checks can be performed instantaneously even by officers on patrol, permits are redundant and unnecessary- if you have a record, it's illegal for you to have a gun anyway, and simply running your name through the system can clear that up.

 

My position on the gov't and law enforcement having the ability and authority to perform such checks without probable cause is a whooole other can of worms. Suffice it to say I'm a staunch Libertarian who believes people should be left to their own devices unless they willfully infringe upon another person's rights. ;)

Show me one instance where someone who has a conceal permit has made a public shooting/hostage situation "better" and I might be willing to agree with you on some of your points. More often than not, people who pull their own "protection" weapons in these situations get mistaken for the perpetrators, just as the case has occasionally been that hostages who have overturned a situation have been mistakenly killed by police because they were the one holding a gun.

 

I hear you on that bit about law enforcement generally sucking everywhere, and that more restrictions on ownership of weapons only limit the ability of citizens while criminals can, and always will do as they please... But adding another weapon to an already dangerous situation never helps. Having a weapon around when people are prone to being swept up in the moment also never helps. Having a population with concealed weapons only works as a deterrent as long as someone actually gives a crap about walking out of that situation. Which means a decrease in minor crimes, but an increase in serious ones. Then there are all those accidental shootings because parents and gun owners don't take precautions.

[TheCalliton]

As long as it doesn't degrade into personal drama, Nazi references, nationalistic bickering, and remains civil I'll allow the thread. Don't make me regret it.

 

 

 

That said... my personal belief is that people should be allowed to arm themselves, but only if the situation makes friggin sense that one "should" be armed for their own protection.

 

Times when it's OK to be armed -

When taking public transportation after hours.

When having to pass through an area with a high incidence of violent crime.

When you're walking through an undeveloped area which may be inhabited by dangerous wildlife.

When hunting.

 

Times when it's NOT ok to be armed -

When attending a sporting event, little league or other.

When you have every intention of drinking yourself stupid and passing out in the corner.

When attending a political rally.

When attending school functions.

When going anywhere children are present.

When going anywhere that fanatical individuals are demonstrating.

When going to the bank or any other places with a high tendency for being robbed at gunpoint.

When you're carrying more weaponry than the security officers present.

When driving long distance on the interstate.

When you are not trained to use the weapon.

When you are only wearing it to make a political statement.

 

 

Most of it is just common sense, and most of the problems are because of people who obviously lack that common sense. People who do go armed to places where by all rights they shouldn't, should be stripped of their rights to carry and be charged with public endangerment, even if there is no intention to do harm. All it takes is one crazy person to get the drop on you to turn a lunch hour into a hostage standoff. A weapon should only be worn for personal protection. When in places which are under the protection of official agencies, you should be willing to abide by their terms and identify yourself as a non-threat so that real threats can be identified and dealt with before an incident occurs.

ok, Dark0ne

i tried to do this and someone closed it right away, so i figured in contact you

[Chaosblade02]

I am for licensed open carry permits for everyone that is not a criminal, or mentally insane, and passes a firearms safety course, as well as a marksmanship course.

 

It should be limited in certain areas, schools, hospitals, banks, government buildings. And any local business has the right to not allow firearms on their property, if they choose to post a sign.

 

If you are caught drunk with a firearm on your person by a police officer, you should lose your permit, and whatever firearm you were carrying. Whether you are causing trouble or not.

 

You should have the right to use it when:

 

Someone threatens you, or your family with deadly force, either by numbers via lynching, or by someone pulling a weapon on you, whether it be a gun, knife, bat, basically anything other than your fists would be considered a weapon of deadly force.

 

If you carry a concealed carry permit, and are in a position via disability, being in a wheel chair, being elderly and frail, being threatened with any force, could be deadly, in which case, you have the right to defend yourself from any physical threats with your firearm.

 

OR

 

If someone threatens you physically, period, you have the right to make it known you carry a firearm. This doesn't mean using it.

 

 

Basically, only stupid people would be the ones getting shot by responsible people with concealed carry permits, someone is carrying a pistol, it simply means, don't ^%&* with them.

 

 

I don't really. I kind of freaked out the first time I saw some huge redneck walk into a McDonalds with two handguns shoved in the back of his pants.

 

And if nobody else is gonna call you out on this comment, I will. My problem was with using the term "Redneck" it is a racial stereotype, and people seem to get a pass when they make stereotypes about White people, but everyone else is off limits, this is bull ^&%^. Someone tell me there isn't a double standard here.

[Harbringe]

@Chaosblade02

 

And if nobody else is gonna call you out on this comment, I will. My problem was with using the term "Redneck" it is a racial stereotype, and people seem to get a pass when they make stereotypes about White people, but everyone else is off limits, this is bull ^&%^. Someone tell me there isn't a double standard here.

 

 

It just doesn't come across the same way if he had said gun toting hippie flower child

[Chaosblade02]

@Chaosblade02

 

And if nobody else is gonna call you out on this comment, I will. My problem was with using the term "Redneck" it is a racial stereotype, and people seem to get a pass when they make stereotypes about White people, but everyone else is off limits, this is bull ^&%^. Someone tell me there isn't a double standard here.

 

 

It just doesn't come across the same way if he had said gun toting hippie flower child

 

Now you are just being an idiot.