Open Carry

[grannywils]

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.

 

I really find myself at a loss on this one, and once again somewhat but not entirely in agreement with you, Vagrant0. Firstly, I hate guns and wish that no one carried them. However, I am also a realist and understand why they do and the need for protecting ourselves and our families, etc.

 

I absolutely would think a permit should be required in any case, as I see no reason why a law-abiding citizen needs to object to obtaining a permit. In spite of my feelings about guns, just about everyone I know and care about owns at least one gun, some "long guns", some hand guns. I have a friend in Texas who scares the dickens out of me with the arsenal he has.

 

My problem with your very well thought out and articulated reasoning, Vagrant, is that I see no way under the sun that anything like that could or would be regulated or legislated. Of course it makes perfect sense on paper and to reasonable thinking people. But I can see too many ways around it. I agree that most crimes are being commited by people who don't much care about the rules anyway. But we might as well not lead any others into temptation during a moment of weakness, as it were. But I don't know how it can be done. I have struggled with this one for a long time.

[Syco21]

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.

The Pearl High School massacre and the UT clock tower massacre are two off the top of my head.

 

The shooter at Pearl High was cornered and subdued by the vice principal whom had a .45 handgun in the glove compartment of his truck. While the VP was unable to save any lives at Pearl High with his actions, he was able to prevent a second shooting at the middle school. The shooter had planned to drive from the HS to the MS and resume his killing spree there.

 

At UT, the students didn't have handguns, rather they had hunting rifles that they kept in their vehicles. When the shooter began firing on the students, they ran and grabbed their rifles and returned fire. When the students were able to return fire, the shooter was forced to take cover and his aim was seriously hampered and he was unable to kill anymore people after that. At least one of the officers that went up the tower and took out the shooter has credited the students' suppression fire with their successful attempt to neutralize the shooter.

[Vagrant0]

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.

The Pearl High School massacre and the UT clock tower massacre are two off the top of my head.

 

The shooter at Pearl High was cornered and subdued by the vice principal whom had a .45 handgun in the glove compartment of his truck. While the VP was unable to save any lives at Pearl High with his actions, he was able to prevent a second shooting at the middle school. The shooter had planned to drive from the HS to the MS and resume his killing spree there.

 

At UT, the students didn't have handguns, rather they had hunting rifles that they kept in their vehicles. When the shooter began firing on the students, they ran and grabbed their rifles and returned fire. When the students were able to return fire, the shooter was forced to take cover and his aim was seriously hampered and he was unable to kill anymore people after that. At least one of the officers that went up the tower and took out the shooter has credited the students' suppression fire with their successful attempt to neutralize the shooter.

The UT case

Austin Police Department (APD) Officers Ramiro Martinez, Houston McCoy and Jerry Day, plus civilian Allen Crum, were the first to reach the tower's observation deck...Crum accidentally discharged a shot from his borrowed rifle.

He was brought into action at the discretion of an officer, and still screwed it up.

 

As for the cover fire on the tower... They didn't know who or what was up there, and things could have gone horribly wrong if a hostage was present. This was also back in the 60s, in Texas... Doesn't really draw many parallels with someone packing heat while they're walking through a populated metropolitan area.

 

The Pearl High case is more recent, but involves a concealed weapon (probably illegally). It's also the principals decision to involve himself in the situation, probably using the gun as a false sense of confidence. If the principal were openly carrying, he would have probably been among the first shot/disabled. The act afterall seemed to be rather planned and premeditated.

[ginnyfizz]

I believe that Vagrant's opinion as to when and where arming yourself might be appropriate is an excellent guideline to use. It's always interesting to see how differently guns are viewed in the USA, than they are in the UK where I am from. And where, I might add, some of the most stringent gun laws in the world have not reduced the rate of gun crime one iota. The various assorted gangsters just make rude gestures at the law and carry on regardless, and woe betide you if you defend yourself with a firearm. I only wish that we could carry on the basis Vagrant says.

 

Syco21 - good point.

[Syco21]

As for the cover fire on the tower... They didn't know who or what was up there, and things could have gone horribly wrong if a hostage was present.

So would it have been better for them to not return fire and allow the shooter to continue firing unimpeded? More people would have died if they did. Is that acceptable to you? I mean, do you honestly believe that would have been better?

 

This was also back in the 60s, in Texas... Doesn't really draw many parallels with someone packing heat while they're walking through a populated metropolitan area.

Downtown Austin wasn't a populated metropolitan area?

 

The Pearl High case is more recent, but involves a concealed weapon (probably illegally).

The request I was responding to was specifically about concealed weapons, not open carry. So this point is pretty moot. As for the legality, that is also a moot point. The example is demonstrating how an armed individual was able to save lives. I understand your request was for license holders, however this example still proves that armed individuals can make a positive difference in a mass shooting.

 

It's also the principals decision to involve himself in the situation, probably using the gun as a false sense of confidence. If the principal were openly carrying, he would have probably been among the first shot/disabled. The act afterall seemed to be rather planned and premeditated.

I don't understand your logic here. You say that it was the VP's decision to involve himself, then go on to state that had he been openly carrying, he'd have likely been the first shot. This does no compute. If it was his decision to involve himself in the shooting, then how would him openly carrying a handgun change that? If he was not near the shooter, which is the impression one is given by your statement that he intentionally involved himself, then how would he be shot? Although I think I see what you're saying now, that the shooter would have planned ahead of time to take out the principal. I am not sure that I agree, the shooter was clearly concerned with his own life, breaking down and crying while following the orders of the VP whom held a gun to the shooter's head.

 

Another thing I do not understand is that you said he used the pistol as a false sense of confidence. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that he could have taken an armed, crazy man with his bare hands, a man that just brutally murdered his own mother moments earlier?

 

And finally, what was the principal to do? Hide in his office while this mad man kills 'his kids' and pray that he isn't next? Again, while the VP was unable to affect the outcome of the shooting at the high school, he was able to save the lives of younger children at the middle school. Had the VP not intervened, Woodham(the shooter) would have driven to the middle school and continued his attacks there.

 

I am not saying that the VP should have been openly carrying, rather I am merely pointing out that the VP being armed saved some lives.

 

Instead of presenting what ifs and could haves, how about presenting some instances where an armed citizen made things worse. It's just a suggestion and I'm not trying to be rude. But it is late and I am tired and I have a way of coming off as rude at times when I least intend it. :wallbash:

[Chaosblade02]

The fact is the criminals are gonna have guns anyway, and they will carry them concealed or out in the open when they commit crimes, having some responsible citizens that are competent marksmen being able to carry legally, is not a bad thing.

 

If just one of the students at the VT massacre had a firearm in their dorm, they could have slipped out and put a bullet in the back of the guys head and saved some lives. Like I said the criminals have guns regardless of what laws are on the table, and will use them. These people had no chance, because not a one of them was armed.

[Harbringe]

Have to say Vagrants post on when and where its appropriate to carry arms is very common sense ,sadly though there are too many people who fail to exhibit the same level of sense and common sense can not be legislated.Generally speaking I am against guns but I would very opposed to an open carry policy as that in and of itself could be problematic in its intimidation aspect.Like Grannywils I can understand why people would own guns but have no understanding why a law abiding citizen would be so opposed to registering it (except for costs ,cause governments can use it as an excuse for a money grab).

 

@Chaosblade02

 

I'm sure Ub3rman123 wasn't trying to make some racial slur in what he said and that was just the language he chose to convey the sense of intimidation he felt at that moment ,which is why I chose the opposite of it to give a sense of what that conveys.Besides it can't be a racial slur or stereotype as there is no race of people on the planet known as rednecks ,if anything it would be a social stereotype that could be used as a social slur.No need to get all name cally.

[TheCalliton]

"I know what you’re thinking: “Did he fire six shots, or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya, punk?"

 

with one of those things, noone will mess with ya... because their head will be gone

[Syco21]

Have to say Vagrants post on when and where its appropriate to carry arms is very common sense

I largely disagree. As has been previously stated, it's GFZs(Gun Free Zones) where pretty every massacre ever has taken place. Those that do, do not carry guns with them because they think there might be a good chance that they're going to be attacked. They do so because there is always a chance. A lesson Suzanna Hupp learned the hard way. I do agree that you should not be carrying if you're intoxicated, fortunately there are already laws against that in most, if not all, states. I don't agree that it's not ok to carry in a bar, I find this belief to hold no logic.

 

I likewise do not agree that it's not ok to carry to a sporting event, political rally or anywhere children are present. I find that last one to be the most counter to logic. Let's say Bob is taking his kids to visit their grandparents whom live in a bad part of town. Bob shouldn't carry a weapon(concealed or otherwise) because there are children present? I think that more than ever Bob should be prepared to defend against an attacker, as it is not only himself he has to protect but his children as well.

 

I also disagree with the part about being around fanatic individuals. For one, what constitutes a fanatic individual? Another is that a group of truly fanatical people would seem to be quite dangerous. If one has to go near them, it would seem wise to do so while armed. His comment about banks and places that usually get robbed at gunpoint also seem counter intuitive. Would it not be prudent to be armed in such a place in case something bad does happen and you are required to defend yourself? Why would it not be ok to carry while traveling? That's another that seems to be completely backwards. Traveling is another one of those high risk situations where it is prudent to be armed.

 

When you are not trained in the use of a weapon. This one kind of amuses me in that one of the arguments against weapons is that they're so easy to operate, any brain dead vegetable could use one to murder someone. Yet, they're so complicated that they require special training in their use. Now, I agree that you should seek out training as much as possible, but I wouldn't restrict the rights of those that can not afford said training. I also disagree with the bit about it not being alright if you're wearing it just for a political statement. Freedom of speech and all that. No one is being harmed by the simple wearing of a weapon, so I don't see an issue with it.

 

As for the part about security, I have only one thing to say about that and it's a video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1O9YrgB8AA

[Vagrant0]

I think you might be missing the point. Obviously a lack of guns does not mean a lack of crime. Having stricter gun laws also never really affects the criminal element. Crime happens even when guns are not available, guns just make it easier to commit crimes, both violent and non. If people were desperate, they would go around robbing stores at fist-point... They might not get very far doing so, but there would undoubtedly be those who would try.

 

Additionally, the point of training with a firearm is more about being able to practice trigger discipline and NOT shoot unless absolutely necessary. No, training isn't needed to kill anyone, as evidenced by the thousands of accidental deaths caused by children finding their parents handguns every year, but that does not mean we should let anyone who wants to carry around a weapon in broad daylight. Even in the "wild" west, this usually ended badly. By requiring training and some reasonable background check, not only do you have a means of tracking who bought weapons if there is ever a crime committed with that weapon, but you make it harder for unstable individuals to acquire those weapons. No, it still won't stop the criminal element, but it requires everyone else to either deal with the criminal element (which requires personal connections, money, and a chance of being killed yourself) or dealing with the the regulatory laws which are in place.

 

As for the topic of this debate, it is not about the right to own a gun, but rather arguing if it is right to be able to go carrying that weapon in open view everywhere you go. If you cannot understand the implications of each and how they differ, then any sort of debate on the matter will only lead to a meaningless argument of semantics.

 

I would however like to point out that indications suggest that:

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.

Doesn't seem to be the case as just recently there was an instance of a shooter threat on a Texas college campus simply because one of the students was walking around with a prop. Clearly the law in this case does not apply to either private, semi-private, or reasonably populated places. Had the threat been real, and what you say about being able to openly carry a weapon be true, this action would not have been reported and someone would almost certainly be dead.

 

After all, if seeing armed individuals becomes commonplace, it becomes harder to know of a potential threat until AFTER someone is dead. Sure, that person may be gunned down by a fellow student after the action has occurred, but that is a little late. Having multiple armed people who don't know what is going on can also lead to a chain-reaction of deaths as people shoot the person who happens to have shot the gunman, or similar. If you stumble down a hall with your weapon drawn and come across 2 armed students pointing their guns at each other and a third one dead, how likely will you be able to know who did what, much less who won't end up taking advantage of the confusion caused by your arrival and start shooting. No, a lockdown situation doesn't necessarily mean lives are saved, but at least in those instances it is clear who is the threat.

 

As for your comment on security... The men involved were doing what they were told to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the security company for not empowering those under their contract. The argument about security being there simply for the sake of discouragement instead of action is another debate entirely, and speaks more about an unwillingness to compromise than anything. It's not perfect, it'll never be perfect, but it's better than nothing all things considered.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Vagrant0