Open Carry

[Syco21]

Sorry for the double post, post was too long. :sweat:

 

Hartzler v. City of San Jose - So let's start arming paranoid individuals? She called police 20 times in the past year... That's more often than once a month. All of which were responded to. And erm, 1975... and even still, the police showed up every time called and even arrested the guy. Her complaint was that the police weren't just sitting on her lawn waiting. I will admit, giving her a gun might have helped prevent her being beaten, but only provided that she knew how to use it, had it on her at all times, and was gifted with enough clairvoyance to see it coming. She would also likely have gone to jail for shooting her ex in a civil dispute.

Are you saying she was paranoid? The man stabbed her to death for Christ's sake, and you think she's paranoid? This case, more than any other, proves the police neither have an obligation to protect an individual nor ability to do so. I am not saying the police are to blame. I am saying that it is prudent that one take upon themself responsibility for their own safety and not rely on someone or some thing that may or may not have the ability or even desire to protect you. Are you saying that it's better her husband was able to stab her to death than she being armed and not relying solely upon the police for her safety? Because this is certainly a case where, had she been armed, she would have been able to successfully fend off her husband. She would have been justified as well.

 

Also, if you notice, all cases were from the 1980s and before... Anyone who was alive in the 80's was well aware of how poorly managed everything was. To compare isolated, freak incidents that are over 20 years old with things as they stand now is just plain faulty. Of course, most of this is whitewashed in the article because the person who wrote it was specifically biased towards people arming themselves. What better way to do that than play on people's fears without regard to context or time frame.

Those aren't simply random cases where the officers failed to protect, they are cases that went to court(atleast some to the supreme court). That is why they're old. It has nothing to do with "oh well the police weren't able to protect you back then, but they can now." That is wholly untrue, the difference between those cases and incidents that happen today is that the ones today don't get taken to court.

 

it is an extreme perversion of what I said

It was extreme for a reason. The notion of "being responsible for your own safety" and "not relying on anyone else" is just plain faulty. Are you going to stop going to doctors entirely because of the handful people have been victims of malpractice or negligence? Then why stop trusting in police to maintain order and protect the citizens because of the handful of instances where they have failed to keep someone from being harmed or killed? You're all for everyone carrying a gun, what about everyone being trained with medical knowledge and armed with being able to write their own prescriptions? Sure, both could save some lives, but both could also be abused to severity.

I'll no more stop going to the doctor than you'll stop driving because there is a chance you'll be killed in a car wreck. Maintaining order and protecting the individual are two entirely different things. The police do not have to protect the individual to maintain order, all they have to do is enforce the laws and arrest people that break them. As I've said countless times already, it is not physically possible for the police to protect every person at all times. Why refuse to carry? It's not going to hurt you, the gun will not jump out of your holster and shoot you or anyone else in the face. You don't refuse to wear a seatbelt because your chances of being in an auto accident are minuscule. A lot of people wear a helmet while riding bikes, should they also become a brain surgeon? No, it's an absurd comparison. Just like yours with carrying. Med school takes decades, and generally requires that the students have above normal intellect. It doesn't take ten years to learn the basics of gun safety and self defense laws. Should everyone study to be a doctor? No, but first aid is routinely taught to just about everyone. Is there a problem with that? I mean that's what the police and paramedics are for, first aid. So why teach it to construction workers? Because it's something everyone can learn and everyone can do and doesn't require a doctorates degree.

 

Sorry, but the idea of arming civilians thoughtlessly can only lead to a further breakdown of society since there is nothing preventing petty criminals, unstable persons from owning AND carrying weapons, and few limitations to prevent them from being used whenever the passion arises. Obviously you cannot see this. A broken system does not mean you should take matters into your own hand, but rather work and facilitate solutions toward fixing that system. You also cannot see that having open carry laws means adding several more laws toward when that weapon can be used without legal incident, and that all of these laws only gives those who know them a better line toward abuse, like everything else.

Just like there was a total breakdown in society in Arizona after they passed constitutional carry(unlicensed concealed and open carry)? Unstable persons should be institutionalized, and there is already laws against them owning weapons. Same for criminals. There is no solution possible that will make it so that there can be an officer at your side at all times to protect you from an attacker. However, you can keep a pistol at your side at all times you fend off an attacker until the police arrive. If a state doesn't allow self defense, then there needs to be a change in their laws anyway, and if a state has strong self defense laws then there is no change needed. Take Texas for instance, we have pretty strong SD laws, there would be no change required to introduce open carry. As for the chance of abuse. Would you rather have people remain lambs to the slaughter? People will always abuse the system, there is no getting around that. But the SD laws are not easily abused.

[TheCalliton]

to paraphrase something from fallout 3 "if everyone is dangerous, everyone is safe"

[Surenas]

to paraphrase something from fallout 3 "if everyone is dangerous, everyone is safe"

That's no wisdom but crap. I wonder what the strange interest in anarchy is doing here.

[DarkeWolf]

Alrighty, there's a few of you that are starting to come across as getting riled up. Sit back, take a long breath, and just chill for a little bit before typing out your responses. Lets not get hot under the collar and let cooler heads prevail ;)

[DarkeWolf]

Oh my freakin' gawd!! I just went and voted today. On the Kansas ballot there was a vote on whether or not to Continue to allow Kansans to have the right to own firearms! o_O

 

THIS right here, was what I was talking about, with informing the public, and anti-gun public opinion.

 

Aurielius- I'm not going to blow off the comments that you'd made. I'll reply again later. I just got home from school, got up waaaay too early, and I dont wanna make comments with a fuzzy head in a thread where they could get turned around ;)

IE- I'll post back later ;)

[TheCalliton]

to paraphrase something from fallout 3 "if everyone is dangerous, everyone is safe"

That's no wisdom but crap. I wonder what the strange interest in anarchy is doing here.

uhg, there is wisdom there

if everyone is dangerous, noone is gonna mess with anyone, its pretty smart

lets say granny is being held up by a street punk, if she has a .44 , and the punk has a .44, neither one is likely to mess with each other. so i feel that open carry is the solution to peace (not the best, but it works)

[Syco21]

THIS right here, was what I was talking about, with informing the public, and anti-gun public opinion.

I disagree that open carry will cause a massive backlash against gun rights. It might cause a backlash in the beginning, but once people start to get more familiar with it, they'll be more tolerant of gun rights and less likely to buy into the lies and arguments of the Brady Bunch(anti gun groups and individuals).

 

If the only time you ever hear about or see guns is when they're being used to commit crimes and travesties, then you'll tend to favor stricter gun control. For obvious reasons. But if you see that there are millions of law abiding gun owners and that these criminals and lunatics are by far in the minority, then you'll be more supportive of stronger gun rights. Much like with cars. Cars kill something like 5-10 times as many people than guns each year. Yet if someone proposed that you ban cars because 'they're too dangerous' people would look at you like you're crazy. This is pretty much because everyone has one and people realize that for the most part, they're pretty safe. If cars were just as rare of a sight as guns, then people would feel the same way about them as they do weapons.

[Balagor]

to paraphrase something from fallout 3 "if everyone is dangerous, everyone is safe"

That's no wisdom but crap. I wonder what the strange interest in anarchy is doing here.

uhg, there is wisdom there

if everyone is dangerous, noone is gonna mess with anyone, its pretty smart

lets say granny is being held up by a street punk, if she has a .44 , and the punk has a .44, neither one is likely to mess with each other. so i feel that open carry is the solution to peace (not the best, but it works)

 

I think that "granny" because of her age will have a lesser dexterity, and lesser speed, and will have a bullet in her head before she even start reaching for the gun, lol

[Vagrant0]

THIS right here, was what I was talking about, with informing the public, and anti-gun public opinion.

I disagree that open carry will cause a massive backlash against gun rights. It might cause a backlash in the beginning, but once people start to get more familiar with it, they'll be more tolerant of gun rights and less likely to buy into the lies and arguments of the Brady Bunch(anti gun groups and individuals).

 

If the only time you ever hear about or see guns is when they're being used to commit crimes and travesties, then you'll tend to favor stricter gun control. For obvious reasons. But if you see that there are millions of law abiding gun owners and that these criminals and lunatics are by far in the minority, then you'll be more supportive of stronger gun rights. Much like with cars. Cars kill something like 5-10 times as many people than guns each year. Yet if someone proposed that you ban cars because 'they're too dangerous' people would look at you like you're crazy. This is pretty much because everyone has one and people realize that for the most part, they're pretty safe. If cars were just as rare of a sight as guns, then people would feel the same way about them as they do weapons.

And again, you confuse the question. The problem with what you are talking about is not about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of qualified, stable, responsible, and trained people OWNING a weapon. But instead this notion you have that EVERYONE should be able to legally walk around with a gun in broad daylight, without ANY sort of regulation, training, or registration... And that notion is what is crazy. Since you use the car model... nobody is talking about banning cars, but yet in order to legally operate a vehicle you have to be *gasp* trained, certified, registered, and accountable for what you do with it. AND even then, there are many deaths because those people who are trained, certified, registered, and held accountable aren't able to remain on-task for what is required... You have so many deaths from cars because you have so many people who happen to be driving. How can you even begin to fathom that any wide-spread arming of civilians, especially without any regulation, would NOT make instances of accidental death even more common? You don't trust police, but yet you trust the average idiot on the street (no offense to idiots who happen to be near, on, or adjacent to the street) with being capable of 'not' accidentally shooting you, losing their gun (easier to lose than a cellphone and often of less consequence (those contracts can really suck)), let alone not creating even more of a problem for police, who we both agree, are already strained, and ill-equipped to deal with a population who feels like taking the law into their own hands?

 

As I said earlier, civilization is only possible by having a reduction of armed citizens and having a responsible force which can act to protect them. Increasing the number of armed persons is not an advancement of civilization, but a detachment from it. Progress cannot happen without cooperation. Now maybe you like living with the notion of being shot every time you leave the house, or of having to be constantly vigilant toward anything that might potentially pose some threat of harm, but in such a world, being armed might make you 'feel' safe, but won't make the world around you any less dangerous.

 

What problems which exist with those services which are charged with our security and safety are another issue entirely, and can actually become less complicated when you can identify real threats from people who are just "practicing their freedom of speech" by being heavily armed in a place with many people. So, try to solve the problem, not create others. If you don't feel safe with the police force which currently exists, try to advocate improvements in that system, instead of posing a perceived threat to others.

[Syco21]

Perhaps you were unaware, but there are just as many guns in America as there are cars. There are millions of individuals that carry their weapons everyday, mostly concealed. But there are a lot that carry openly. I never said that I wanted no regulation. Truth is there is already regulation. Even with unlicensed carry. Prohibited persons can not carry by virtue that they can't possess a weapon. Background checks and mandatory, and in many cases useless, training will not stop them from breaking the law by carrying. You don't have to have a license to speak freely, why would you have to have one to exercise any of your other rights?

 

I do fully support gun training, what I do not support is mandatory gun training. Pretty much everything you need to know can be learned by spending 5 minutes with a dealer. I personally believe that gun safety should be taught in school and as early as possible. I also think that the training classes should evolve as the students age. Where as the first classes they would be taking while in say 1st grade, would be teaching them not to handle a weapon, then by say jr high or something, teach them how to properly handle firearms. Of course this is obviously not going to be appreciated by some hoplophobes. Just make it so the parents can have opt their kids out of the classes.

 

Finally, I say once more. Relying on other people for things, including one's safety, is irresponsible and childish at best. I'm not 5, I neither need nor want my hand held. That is what you're advocating by saying that you should render yourself helpless and defenseless. I disagree, and I do not call that civilization. That's mindlessness.