Should Open Carry be Legal?

[Flippinfunky]

Because the other guy (thief/robber/etc) won'/don't play by those rules. If someone is going to do harm to you, you really think they will check to make sure the fight will be fair? I don't think we are talking about two neighbors getting into a disagreement. Open carry deters those who want to make you a target for mugging/robbery/etc.

Okay. I still dont get it. Are there robbers and muggers hiding around every corner? The chances of me having an argument with my neighbor are greater than the chances of me getting mugged. I've been alive for almost 40 years and have yet to be mugged or robbed....It seems a bit paranoid to me. Just sayin'

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay. I still dont get it. Are there robbers and muggers hiding around every corner? The chances of me having an argument with my neighbor are greater than the chances of me getting mugged. I've been alive for almost 40 years and have yet to be mugged or robbed....It seems a bit paranoid to me. Just sayin'

well what are the chances of your house burning down-bet you have a fire extinguisher and insurance.

I was mugged in an area where someone claimed there was no muggings. Fortunately I had a CCW license and a smith and wesson-I normally didn't carry it but that night I did because I had dinner with a cop friend and his family and he wanted to see my new pistol. And the muggers had the good luck of mugging the one graduate student in the area who was both armed and trained in how to deal with muggers.

One out of a thousand-good luck for me-bad for the guy whose colon got blown out his ass.

 

[Flippinfunky]

well what are the chances of your house burning down-bet you have a fire extinguisher and insurance.

No, I dont. I have a phone to call 911 though.

I was mugged in an area where someone claimed there was no muggings. Fortunately I had a CCW license and a smith and wesson-I normally didn't carry it but that night I did because I had dinner with a cop friend and his family and he wanted to see my new pistol. And the muggers had the good luck of mugging the one graduate student in the area who was both armed and trained in how to deal with muggers.

Yeah, see...this is my whole point. I'm not against guns...I just feel a concealed gun is as good as an open carry one. They shoot the same. Seems to me the open carry is to intimidate, where the concealed one isn't really about being "badass."

 

[TurtleDude]

No, I dont. I have a phone to call 911 though.



Yeah, see...this is my whole point. I'm not against guns...I just feel a concealed gun is as good as an open carry one. They shoot the same. Seems to me the open carry is to intimidate, where the concealed one isn't really about being "badass."

yeah that call 9-1-1 works great if you aren't home or you are incapacitated. BTW I have already advocated CC in most areas for many reasons including creating an environment of uncertainty that protects non carriers too. when I shot the mope the DA noted that thousands of people in that county had CCW licenses. Muggings which were about 1-2 a week before I did a Muggercolonoscopy and the DA pointed out how many carry permits were around-ended for 15 months-not a single mugging in the county.

 

[jet57]

you are just being a contrarian now. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Zimmerman has no relevance to open carry

Uh, no; people keep replying and forming questions, and you're not the coversation moderator anyway, so . . .

And Zimmerman is an excellent example of my argument: no gun - no dead kid - full stop. So, how many "Zimmermans" do you think are there; either in open carry now, or desiring open carry . . . ? That's the point, and since you also think it's a bad idea to have open carry in urban areas, then that makes my argument rock solid.

 

[jet57]

I already told you why your argument was stupid is in post 246. The basis of your argument is bias, supposition, and faulty logic.

Stupid people everywhere. No gun...well maybe he beats him to death, or into a coma, or causes massive bodily damage. It's not like guns are the only way to kill people. Hell without cars, we'd have like 30,000+ people alive each year, yet no one is clamoring that we should get rid of those.

In a free society where the rights of the individual are protected and proliferated, there is going to be some amount of inherent dangers since nearly all rights can be abused by stupid people to have negative outcomes. Or even worse, not so stupid people purposefully inciting. But that's just what it is. Free never has been nor ever will be safe.

That is not framing an argument that shows that Zimmerman was not a nut with gun and a sterling example of what I’m arguing; and we’re talking about the open carry of firearms here, not sticks and cars. And my argument is not just supposition; using Zimmerman, and even Laughner as examples, my argument shows a cold hard fact.

Everybody has individual rights in this country; up to and including the right to be protected from nuts with guns. If the gun nuts think they live in an unsafe area –move away! Personal responsibility, right? I mean, isn’t that the common sense answer? Sounds like it to me.

Ya’know, the fact that guns nuts say; “well I’m gonna make my neighborhood safe because the II Amendment says I can”, is just a stupid supplanting of the police and or sheriff and serves nothing but the gun nut’s ego and political agenda: I mean, there’s no other logical conclusion that can be reached here. Modern society just cannot sustain or withstand such an obvious threat to public safety. And this foolish notion that the II Amendment is under some sort of threat with respect to “open carry” is just pure unadulterated BS.

 

[cpgrad08]

No, I dont. I have a phone to call 911 though.

Problem with 911 is that they come after the event you called for has already happen. a .45 slug to the head stops rape instantly .

 

[jet57]

Problem with 911 is that they come after the event you called for has already happen. a .45 slug to the head stops rape instantly .

This post goes right to the point of my argument in post # 281; thanks for making it so eloquently.

 

[Ikari]

That is not framing an argument that shows that Zimmerman was not a nut with gun and a sterling example of what I’m arguing; and we’re talking about the open carry of firearms here, not sticks and cars. And my argument is not just supposition; using Zimmerman, and even Laughner as examples, my argument shows a cold hard fact.

Everybody has individual rights in this country; up to and including the right to be protected from nuts with guns. If the gun nuts think they live in an unsafe area –move away! Personal responsibility, right? I mean, isn’t that the common sense answer? Sounds like it to me.

Ya’know, the fact that guns nuts say; “well I’m gonna make my neighborhood safe because the II Amendment says I can”, is just a stupid supplanting of the police and or sheriff and serves nothing but the gun nut’s ego and political agenda: I mean, there’s no other logical conclusion that can be reached here. Modern society just cannot sustain or withstand such an obvious threat to public safety. And this foolish notion that the II Amendment is under some sort of threat with respect to “open carry” is just pure unadulterated BS.

It's not cold hard fact. You are assuming that in these cases no harm would have come to the victim if a gun were not present, and that's logical folly. You have argued on nothing more than bias, opinion, and supposition. As you have clearly once again shown here.

 

[jet57]

It's not cold hard fact. You are assuming that in these cases no harm would have come to the victim if a gun were not present, and that's logical folly. You have argued on nothing more than bias, opinion, and supposition. As you have clearly once again shown here.

It is a fact.

 

[Ikari]

It is a fact.

That is in fact supposition.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is not framing an argument that shows that Zimmerman was not a nut with gun and a sterling example of what I’m arguing; and we’re talking about the open carry of firearms here, not sticks and cars. And my argument is not just supposition; using Zimmerman, and even Laughner as examples, my argument shows a cold hard fact.

The two examples that you cite are as far apart as night and day, and neither depended on open carry being legal. Most gun crime is NOT done with regard to any law, so passing some moronic unconstitutional "ban" law, like those that make recreational drugs illegal, is not going to have any noticable effect on crime, in fact quite the opposite is true.

Everybody has individual rights in this country; up to and including the right to be protected from nuts with guns. If the gun nuts think they live in an unsafe area –move away! Personal responsibility, right? I mean, isn’t that the common sense answer? Sounds like it to me.

Great, every time a crime is reported, the "personally responsible" among us, will pack up and move to ???. The idea behind any defensive measure, be it alarms, locks, warning signs, dogs or fences is the same as for carrying a weapon (up to and including a handgun); it is a valuable deterent to being chosen as a crime victim (but is much more portable). Remember that criminals are basically lazy, or they would likely work to earn a living as most of us choose to do; you do not have to do much, to make yourself be passed over as "too hard" of a target, by the typical criminal, thus they continue right past you in search of an easier victim.

Ya’know, the fact that guns nuts say; “well I’m gonna make my neighborhood safe because the II Amendment says I can”, is just a stupid supplanting of the police and or sheriff and serves nothing but the gun nut’s ego and political agenda: I mean, there’s no other logical conclusion that can be reached here. Modern society just cannot sustain or withstand such an obvious threat to public safety. And this foolish notion that the II Amendment is under some sort of threat with respect to “open carry” is just pure unadulterated BS.

OK, you may have the luxury of a nearby LEO watching over you, and keeping you (and your neighborhood) safe, but many of us live, work, travel, seek entertainment and/or shop in areas that expose us to considerable crime risk. When seconds really count, the police are only minutes away.

I am sure that your stature and attitude protect you from all harm, that you are the baddest MF in the valley and all sorts of things that many of us are not, so you see no valid reason for ANYONE to carry a weapon, certainly none as effective as a handgun. That is your right, but does not change the rights of, or risks to, others. Just because abortion is legal, does not compell anyone to have one, just as the right to carry a handgun does not require you (or anyone else) to do so. To assert that because YOU feel safe, we must all do things your way, is insane.

Crime happens, a lot to many, many people everyday; to deny any crime victim, or potential crime victim, from doing everything in their power to NOT be the next victim is NOT your right to decide. Try all you want to get the constitution amended to eliminate the 2nd amendment, but do not pretend it does not exist in the mean time. Try all you want to get more crimianls locked up, and for a much longer time, by changing the laws and I will gladly join you, but leave me, and other law abiding citizens, alone with ALL of our rights intact.

 

[Captain America]

You should be able to open carry and conceal carry. As long as you carry, you're okay in my book. If you choose not to, that's okay too. But don't expect me to protect you if and when you find your butt in a sling.

 

[jet57]

That is in fact supposition.

Oh please; you just can't refute the common sense my argument contains.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oh please; you just can't refute the common sense my argument contains.

You are living proof that common sense is not so common. Please see post #287 ;-)

 

[mike2810]

This post goes right to the point of my argument in post # 281; thanks for making it so eloquently.

So you are intimidated if someone openly carries a weapon, but you are ok with it if its concealed. Seems a contridiction.

To some criminal who is shot, it makes little difference if the weapon was displayed or not. Yet, just maybe if the weapon was visable, the crime would not have taken place. Call it itimidation if you want. Visible weapons may deter someone from doing wrong.

 

[Ikari]

Oh please; you just can't refute the common sense my argument contains.

It's not common sense. Guns are not the only way through which one human can kill the other. You assume that without the gun, there would have been no harm done to the victim. That IS supposition. Your argument isn't common sense. It's built upon your perceived bias of gun ownership and built upon supposition. That's it. Come back when you do have a "common sense" argument.

 

[jet57]

The two examples that you cite are as far apart as night and day, and neither depended on open carry being legal. Most gun crime is NOT done with regard to any law, so passing some moronic unconstitutional "ban" law, like those that make recreational drugs illegal, is not going to have any noticable effect on crime, in fact quite the opposite is true.

Great, every time a crime is reported, the "personally responsible" among us, will pack up and move to ???. The idea behind any defensive measure, be it alarms, locks, warning signs, dogs or fences is the same as for carrying a weapon (up to and including a handgun); it is a valuable deterent to being chosen as a crime victim (but is much more portable). Remember that criminals are basically lazy, or they would likely work to earn a living as most of us choose to do; you do not have to do much, to make yourself be passed over as "too hard" of a target, by the typical criminal, thus they continue right past you in search of an easier victim.

OK, you may have the luxury of a nearby LEO watching over you, and keeping you (and your neighborhood) safe, but many of us live, work, travel, seek entertainment and/or shop in areas that expose us to considerable crime risk. When seconds really count, the police are only minutes away.

I am sure that your stature and attitude protect you from all harm, that you are the baddest MF in the valley and all sorts of things that many of us are not, so you see no valid reason for ANYONE to carry a weapon, certainly none as effective as a handgun. That is your right, but does not change the rights of, or risks to, others. Just because abortion is legal, does not compell anyone to have one, just as the right to carry a handgun does not require you (or anyone else) to do so. To assert that because YOU feel safe, we must all do things your way, is insane.

Crime happens, a lot to many, many people everyday; to deny any crime victim, or potential crime victim, from doing everything in their power to NOT be the next victim is NOT your right to decide. Try all you want to get the constitution amended to eliminate the 2nd amendment, but do not pretend it does not exist in the mean time. Try all you want to get more crimianls locked up, and for a much longer time, by changing the laws and I will gladly join you, but leave me, and other law abiding citizens, alone with ALL of our rights intact.

My two examples are perfect: they’re nuts with guns. It points to the type of mentality that creates a public safety threat, whether they carry open or concealed doesn’t matter. And I never said anything about an unconstitutional ban law: such regulations are not bans anymore than a traffic ordinance saying you can’t have a “USA 1” front license plate is ban on free speech. Ya’ can’t carry a loaded bazooka down the street either, so your argument against this part of my case won’t hold up. ** Please see post # 283 for another example.

Great, every time a crime is reported, the "personally responsible" among us, will pack up and move to ???.

This is a classic example of misrepresenting someone’s speech. What I said was; If (you) think the neighborhood you live in is dangerous, then move? Isn’t personal responsibility the conservative / Libertarian creed these days? What not leave crime to the police? Carrying a sword is a deterrent too. Your argument is simply pro –gun; nothing more. And don’t forget; I said that I own three firearms including one pistol, and I wouldn’t even think of carrying it around with me unless I was living with an open and active threat to my safety were going on at the time.

I have also lived in rural areas where nobody locked their doors and everybody had guns; myself included. But this statement doesn’t make sense:

OK, you may have the luxury of a nearby LEO watching over you, and keeping you (and your neighborhood) safe, but many of us live, work, travel, seek entertainment and/or shop in areas that expose us to considerable crime risk. When seconds really count, the police are only minutes away.

Where are you? Harlem? Hunter’s Point? Everybody else around you is doing fine, so this statement is seriously misleading. Ambulances are only minutes away as well, so what’s your point? If an innocent bystander gets hit by a stray (my point as well) then the shooter is responsible and the police are still minutes away, so now how solid is your argument . . .

And you can knock off the silly ad-hom about me. I was making a point.

As far as “crime happening every day”: get some mace; same defense tactic but much less troubling for the world around you.

I think my stronger point that the gun zealots are the ones who have endangered the II Amendment is also a very compelling case that some you should be talking about.

 

[jet57]

You are living proof that common sense is not so common. Please see post #287 ;-)

Well, you're not Ikari, so that settles that.

 

[jet57]

So you are intimidated if someone openly carries a weapon, but you are ok with it if its concealed. Seems a contridiction.

To some criminal who is shot, it makes little difference if the weapon was displayed or not. Yet, just maybe if the weapon was visable, the crime would not have taken place. Call it itimidation if you want. Visible weapons may deter someone from doing wrong.

I never said any such thing about any styles of carry. Concealed carry where I live is for police and federal agents only. The intimidating factor to the general public however is obvious: it's a public safety hazard and has nothing to do wiff da shawiff acommin' down de stweet: oooohhh he tuff!

. . . please

 

[jet57]

It's not common sense. Guns are not the only way through which one human can kill the other. You assume that without the gun, there would have been no harm done to the victim. That IS supposition. Your argument isn't common sense. It's built upon your perceived bias of gun ownership and built upon supposition. That's it. Come back when you do have a "common sense" argument.

Oh my god . . .

Guns were involved in both incidences; not tire irons. You're beating a dead horse. You can't refute my argument; that's the bottom line. And I own three weapons myself; as well as a swell collection of knives, so your charge of "bias" won't hold water either.

 

[joko104]

Inever said it made things happen. What I said was that it provides too much of an opportunity for gun nuts - like George Zimmerman. You're "guns defend people" is a specious argument.

Again this business about Martin and Zimmerman is just another silly argument that ignores the fact that Zimmerman was in charge of his part of the incident. He chose not to explain himself, but chose instead to escalate the incident to point where that boy was killed by the gun Zimmerman was packin' around: the man's an idiot and makes my case perfectly. How you can sit by and defy logic and reason in this case just makes my point even stronger I'm afraid.

The gun zealots in this country are the ones who are threatening the II Amendment; nobody else. What you're not considering is that this BS with the gun nuts is what will eventually overturn the II Amendment.

Count on it.

The mistake Zimmerman made was not letting it known earlier that he was armed.

Yes, we understand you really, really wish Martin had been able to beat Zimmerman to death or cause permanent brain damage. Because of the Kel-Tec 9mm your wish for Zimmerman's death didn't come true.

Using Martin-Zimmmerman is the WORST possible example.

 

[joko104]

That's great: nice life story. If you think you need protection, then you're doing things you shouldn't be doing .

^ Wow, is statement thata philosphy of total nonsense or total cowardice?

Everyone should quit all dangerous jobs. Swell shut-down-society concept, huh?

 

[ttwtt78640]

My two examples are perfect: they’re nuts with guns. It points to the type of mentality that creates a public safety threat, whether they carry open or concealed doesn’t matter. And I never said anything about an unconstitutional ban law: such regulations are not bans anymore than a traffic ordinance saying you can’t have a “USA 1” front license plate is ban on free speech. Ya’ can’t carry a loaded bazooka down the street either, so your argument against this part of my case won’t hold up. ** Please see post # 283 for another example.



This is a classic example of misrepresenting someone’s speech. What I said was; If (you) think the neighborhood you live in is dangerous, then move? Isn’t personal responsibility the conservative / Libertarian creed these days? What not leave crime to the police? Carrying a sword is a deterrent too. Your argument is simply pro –gun; nothing more. And don’t forget; I said that I own three firearms including one pistol, and I wouldn’t even think of carrying it around with me unless I was living with an open and active threat to my safety were going on at the time.

I have also lived in rural areas where nobody locked their doors and everybody had guns; myself included. But this statement doesn’t make sense:



Where are you? Harlem? Hunter’s Point? Everybody else around you is doing fine, so this statement is seriously misleading. Ambulances are only minutes away as well, so what’s your point? If an innocent bystander gets hit by a stray (my point as well) then the shooter is responsible and the police are still minutes away, so now how solid is your argument . . .

And you can knock off the silly ad-hom about me. I was making a point.

As far as “crime happening every day”: get some mace; same defense tactic but much less troubling for the world around you.

I think my stronger point that the gun zealots are the ones who have endangered the II Amendment is also a very compelling case that some you should be talking about.

You suggest many NON-LETHAL options, as you say in a later post "in your area you have no right to carry". That is why I think you want others to HAVE TO LIVE AS YOU DO (the basis of all of yor arguments), owning useless firearms that must stay home. It's like saying its OK to own a car, just keep it in your driveway or garage, but please feel free to use your bicycle while out in public. You can't have it both ways. Either a right is a right (you obviously don't care enough to protest a local gun carry ban) or it is state/city issued privilege. Using non-lethal force against a perp intent on using "whatever force is necessary" is a VERY bad battle plan, likely to simply make them go all "Trayvon" on you.

In one breath you say rely on the police, in the next carry an arsenal of non-lethal things yet NEVER a handgun (because YOU can't?), because criminals have and use those things (and YOU can't). That is the whole idea behind honest citizen carry, to make it where not only LEO (gov't) and criminals have guns available. Trust me that criminals can tell who is LEO pretty well. What good is having your guns ONLY in your home? That 'protects' you for perhaps 1/2 (at most) of the day while you are in your "safest place" behind a locked door with your dogs and neighbors nearby. The rest of the time you are on THEIR turf, out in public playing potential crime victim, displaying your possessions (except your gun) and showing off your fine ride, just daring that thug to take it from you.

 

[Ikari]

Oh my god . . .

Guns were involved in both incidences; not tire irons. You're beating a dead horse. You can't refute my argument; that's the bottom line. And I own three weapons myself; as well as a swell collection of knives, so your charge of "bias" won't hold water either.

You have no argument. Guns may have been used in both cases, but that doesn't mean that some other item could not have been used in the absence of guns. For the love of all that is holy, just learn what supposition means.

Also you claiming that you own guns does not remove your bias on this exercise of rights. Your statements have already shown your bias towards those who would want to open carry. You can have all the guns you want, that doesn't mean that you don't hold bias to certain exercises with guns. You are a bucket of logic fail.