Open Carry

[Harbringe]

@Syco21

 

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

 

If your going to quote me at least quote the whole sentence ,its misleading not to do so.

 

One of the problems in discussing an issue like guns is that anything that can be taken as a common sense approach or solution can always be challenged by the acts of an irrational person or event but that's the nature of such events and in examining it you can always go from one tragic event to the next upping the ante as to why you should carry a gun ,its much like politicians who prey upon our fears and vulnerabilities to get elected ,there always a bogeyman issue they come up with each and every election.Not that the gun issue is entirely a bogeyman issue just that it lends easily to such leanings ,which makes the issue hard to clearly comprehend.

[Syco21]

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.

I'm not really sure what your point is here, possibly because the quote from my post was messed up. :confused:

 

Additionally, the point of training with a firearm is more about being able to practice trigger discipline and NOT shoot unless absolutely necessary.

Trigger discipline isn't really something that can be trained. For example, I have great trigger discipline even though I have only been a gun owner for 30 hours now and never been to any formal training. My trigger discipline comes from reading about guns. I believe that all that's really needed is for the dealer to be like "don't point the gun at anyone, keep your finger off the trigger till you're ready to pull and for the love of God, always, ALWAYS treat it like it is loaded, even when you know it's not." Idiots will be idiots and everyone else will listen.

 

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.

You're overestimating how difficult it would be to acquire a weapon through unofficial channels. It is neither that difficult, nor dangerous. I also am not sure about the 'thousands of accidental deaths caused by children'. That number is actually somewhere between 500 and 600. By requiring training, you are limiting carry/ownership to those whom are wealthy enough to afford training.

 

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.

You're absolutely right! But I said nothing about ownership in my post. :huh: If you are referring to my mention of 'restricting their rights', I view carry as a fundamental right.

 

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.

You must be talking about the incident at A&M with the kid that had an AK47 replica which took place exactly one month after the most recent school shooting at UT Austin where the shooter had an AK47. I never said it was commonplace, I said it was legal. I also did not say that it was legal on college campuses, it is not.

 

Did you know that it is perfectly legal to openly carry a long gun at the Texas state capital? I'm not talking about in the Austin city limits, though that is legal too. I am talking about in the capital building.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

A person not inclined to break the law will not be more inclined to do so just because they have a gun. Ask a carry permit holder; having deadly force on your hip makes you more careful, not less. You think about what might happen if you cut that guy off at the red light. You avoid getting in a fight with that jerk who just took your place in line. You do pretty much anything you can to de-escalate any confrontation you get into inadvertently, because you know in the back of your mind that you can't predict how the other party will react, and if they become violent you know one of you might end up dead.

 

You don't think "gee, it'd be really easy to knock over this convenience store if I put my gun in the clerk's face." You won't think that because you didn't think "gee, I wish I had a gun so I could rob this place" the day before when you weren't carrying. If you do not have a criminal mindset, and I think we can safely say that very few people do, then you will not behave like a criminal. If you are not a violent person, you will not become violent if you have the means to do violence in your possession. A gun is not a magical device, it is a tool with a very specific application- it does not alter your disposition or personality.

 

We "gun folk" like to call that holding oneself to a "higher standard of care." Can't speak for everyone, and I know there are some real twits out there with guns and knives and slingshots and all manner of other things that can cause a person harm... but I know an awful lot of people with guns, and not one of them strikes me as the vigilante type. I'd venture to guess that responsible people outnumber careless morons by a comfortable margin.

 

With regards to negligent discharges (accidental is when something out of the shooter's control causes the gun to fire- negligent is when the booger hook pulls the trigger when it wasn't supposed to)... it happens to the 'trained professionals' as often as it does to anyone else. There's a fantastic video on youtube of an officer teaching a "gun safety" class to a bunch of kids- he shoots himself in the foot because he forgot to check his weapon and point it in a safe direction. People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes hurt, and sometimes they kill, and it happens regardless of how safe we try to make the world.

 

The sad fact is that the more you take responsibility away from a person, the less they feel like being responsible. When was the last time you remembered to look both ways before crossing at a traffic light? Odds are if you looked, you only looked at the guy with his right turn signal on, because the light will "protect" you from everyone else, right? Should we ban privately-owned cars so that nobody ever runs a red light (do we think that the trained professionals would never do such a thing)? Should we do away with traffic signals because some people will ignore them anyway? No, and we shouldn't do away with all gun laws, either. But it is important to recognize that the law is not a shield- humans are unpredictable. Yes, accidents will happen. The question is whether or not the number of crimes prevented by mass carry of weapons for self-defense will overwhelmingly exceed the number of accidents.

 

Incidentally, accidental shootings almost (almost) never involve anyone but the person holding the gun... and there's a reason why so many of them involve trained professionals. Imagine you're a police officer, and your partner just slapped the cuffs on that guy who's been burglarizing houses all month. You had to chase him a few hundred feet, you're winded, you have the mother of all adrenaline rushes, and you're about do re-holster your gun. Did you remember to take your finger off the trigger? Oops.

 

With regards to children getting shot...

 

I'll probably catch flak for this, but I think gun safety ought to be a class in school- as early as practical. The earlier you teach a kid something, the more firmly it sticks in their mind- you don't even need to use live ammunition in order to get the message across. Start out, say, around fifth grade with the basics- using dummy rifles and handguns. Let the parents decide if they want their kids handling real guns and ammo after that, but make sure that every kid understands how to responsibly and safely handle a gun. That way, when they go over to their new friend's house where daddy is stupid, they'll know not to point that loaded revolver they found at their friend's head and pull the trigger.

 

You can't just say "kids shouldn't be exposed to guns" and call it a day... I'm sorry, but that smacks of the same logic that fuels abstinence-only sex education (which, as we all know, put an end to teen pregnancies). Obviously, the current methods aren't good enough- knowledge disarms curiosity and temptation. Deny that knowledge and, should the opportunity present itself, that kid's gonna find a way to learn it themselves... all too often with dire consequences. Better that children learn about guns through a responsible adult rather than movies and TV and videogames... if you want reality to be on their mind, it has to be put there before fiction.

[Ghogiel]

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.

 

I would speculate a large increase of gun crime to follow. If you are worried about increase of gun crime, I don't see the logic in wanting there to be an increase of them. If at all possible the example of the US is not one I would recommend any country to emulate interms of gun proliferation and use. their gun crime is at such a level compared to the UK its a case of exactly what not to do.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

You will notice that places like switzerland have 5 times higher gun homicides than UK, and any place on that list, simply fact is if you increase the circulation of guns, crime and death as a result will increase to.

 

anyway, I don't have a need for a gun anymore. In fact i never needed a gun when I had one. But each to their own. Next year I'll probably have to have one around again :down:

[Syco21]

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).

Because England had a gun registry just before they had gun prohibition.

 

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.

I forgot to comment on this. Basically my point wasn't a complaint against security forces, it was highlighting that they are not there to protect you nor are they allowed to. To not carry because there are security guards at your destination is naive.

 

I would speculate a large increase of gun crime to follow. If you are worried about increase of gun crime, I don't see the logic in wanting there to be an increase of them. If at all possible the example of the US is not one I would recommend any country to emulate interms of gun proliferation and use. their gun crime is at such a level compared to the UK its a case of exactly what not to do.

 

http://www.nationmas...s-with-firearms

 

You will notice that places like switzerland have 5 times higher gun homicides than UK, and any place on that list, simply fact is if you increase the circulation of guns, crime and death as a result will increase to.

 

anyway, I don't have a need for a gun anymore. In fact i never needed a gun when I had one. But each to their own. Next year I'll probably have to have one around again :down:

That's not really a discussion for this topic, however I will say this. Comparing raw numbers between the US and UK, especially old numbers, does not really shed any light on the situation and cause of differences between them. Murder rates in the US have been declining for the last decade, while incidentally enough, gun ownership and gun carry has been steadily increasing. If you'd like, I'd be happy to continue this discussion in PM. :smile:

[AliasTheory]

@Syco21

 

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

 

Obviously not common sense if it is too lacking.

 

This is one of those things that look great on paper but just cannot be realized. Idealistically it would be great if everyone on the planet had this "common sense," but sadly no. There's a time and place for everything, even guns, but they are used so inappropriately. Such is man's instrument of death.

 

Therefore, I simply believe we cannot trust everyone with them. We are human beings. At times we are very irrational. Logic may say to do something, but our emotions suggest and often create another. Pulling the trigger is too easy. Only those who are deemed as responsible for these killing machines and prove that should have open carry...we can't just trust anyone.

[Vagrant0]

I forgot to comment on this. Basically my point wasn't a complaint against security forces, it was highlighting that they are not there to protect you nor are they allowed to. To not carry because there are security guards at your destination is naive.

To think that anyone can act without regard to the safety of others or themselves is also naive. The guards did not act because they were not trained or given permission to do so. Simple as that. They were not trained or given permission because the company which oversees them probably did not want to deal with all the legal paperwork and liability related to giving that permission or training. Open carry would not help this situation because the guards still would not be allowed to act under the terms of their contract, and anyone who decided to involve themselves in the situation would become legally liable for any injuries which resulted. The reality is that if you shoot someone who is not on your property, and they die somewhere other than on your property, in most states, it counts as murder unless you can prove that your LIFE was in danger. Anyone who pulled a gun in that situation could be charged, even with an open carry law, because their life was not in danger. Or are you willing to try and convince a jury that a 200 pound man would feel mortally threatened by a 110 pound girl and found it NECESSARY to hold her at gunpoint?

 

Furthermore, one need not have been armed to stop that transgression. One of suitable stature could have simply spoken up and put forth a verbal resistance to the act which would encourage others to participate. But nobody did. Even if someone were armed, they probably wouldn't have done anything because it is human nature to avoid potentially dangerous situations which do not personally involve us.

 

 

The reality is that civilization requires a decrease in armed individuals wandering around. This is universally true among all cultures past and present. In relinquishing our personal ability to protect ourselves we become reliant on the services of that civilization (police and military) to keep us safe. Just because the national systems of security may be flawed, primarily because of legal and criminal elements, does not mean that we should necessarily have to start arming ourselves. The problem isn't the system, it's the destructive elements within that system. Endorsing anything against that system would only work to further destabilize it. An armed population of individuals with no restrictions would only be a regression to earlier, uncivilized times, and neither solve those problems, nor encourage advancement of those systems.

[Harbringe]

Doesn't anyone find it odd that in the clip of the girl getting beat ,its all about the security guards not doing anything ,yet there were dozens of people who just stood around and also did nothing ,really speaks to the level of empathy or regard that we as a species seemed to have sunk to.Suppose that's why when someone does decide to do something we call them brave or even heroes.

[Kendo 2]

I support licensed open carry (not a great shock there)and stringent background checks to qualify the applicants. I don't support the 'Wild West' unlicensed option, though I support the ability for lawful Americans to own an unlicensed rifle or shotgun for hunting or home defense. Just leave it at home unless you're hunting or camping.

 

And there was in instance a few years ago in Dallas where convicted felon shot and killed a police officer while fleeing from a traffic stop. He continued firing at bystanders and was shot and killed by a licensed conceal-and-carry civilian. I can dig up the newspaper article but I really don't want to. It isn't that important to me, but that is one instance where a licensed carry civilian saved lives.

[Aurielius]

For those that have read my views on the 2nd Amendment thread it will come as no shock that I support licensed Open Carry permits. On a personal basis I have had a concealed permit for several decades, and on one occasion it saved my hide. Open carry would deter more than concealed carry because of the obviousness of intent to maintain self defense and more than likely deter a confrontation at it's incubation stage. This is not a blanket approval to revert to the wild west, but it should be noted that when most men were armed, society tended to be more polite because you never knew when an indiscreet insult might be the last words you ever uttered. That last comment was tongue in cheek for those of you that cannot tell the difference.