Open Carry of a Dangerous Weapon

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: You speak of natural defense.... but a firearm is not a natural defense

Read what I said Prax.....

Defense is the most natural, and most finite objective right there is and its value is blatantly, and apparently obvious to anyone who attacks the question from all sides equally.

Defense is the most NATURAL RIGHT, not arms are the most natural method of defense.

Try not to make the debate out of things I didn't say please.

Prax said: So tell me.... what would you rather own? A long-range, high velocity, multiple round Taser (It can be invented), or a Glock 9mm? Why?

A Glock 9mm.

The Glock is easy to maintain, acceptably accurate, and cheap to feed so I can stay in practice. Its versatile for close combat, but limited in range. Most self-defense scenarios take place in less than 15 yards, and that distance can be closed fast, so I want something that has stopping power, as well as fast repeatability for continued fire if it is required.

I am an old fashioned guy, prefer carbereutors to fuel injection, and firearms to high-tech gadgetry. I wouldn't gamble with my life. (I would however entertain having both.....)

Prax said: If both can equally protect you,

They couldn't.

Prax said: both could equally take down a suspect quickly....

They can't.

Prax said: and let's say the government issued you the taser for free for the right to bear arms and for your own protection, would you still take the Glock 9mm?

Yes, and petition to stop the government giving out free tasers squandering the taxpayers tax money.

Prax said: Why?

I think I have made that clear. Let me know if I haven't.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

I am an authority on psychology, thanks very much.

For instance, you are characterized by fear. A prime example is that you said, "... flunk you" instead of "... fuck you" because you fear the consequences.

You knew what would be implied by your comment, but by altering the word you exhibit your fear of reprisal.

Also, you want me to stop calling you paranoid and afraid, but instead you call it prepared.

What is it you are preparing for? Or better yet, why do you have to be prepared? What is it you are afraid of?

The consequences of your fear are a danger to others. That's why you shouldn't OC a gun.

[smallpox]

Read what I said Prax..... Defense is the most natural, and most finite objective right there is and its value is blatantly, and apparently obvious to anyone who attacks the question from all sides equally. Defense is the most NATURAL RIGHT, not arms are the most natural method of defense. Try not to make the debate out of things I didn't say please.

Defense is limited to what is necessary to repeal an offense from causing deadly or grievous bodily harm. Chasing people off your "propertay" with a shotgun with the limited knowledge of laws to make a sound judgment is hardly a defense. It's using a bazooka to chase off a fly, it's hazardous and useless.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: shaw This is why I used homicide. When a person is murdered, they are dead--there is no other outcome, like in the case of rape or assault or any of the other tracked violent crimes. This debate is a response to those that believe OC/CC makes this nation a safer place. The UK doesn't have the guns we have, and has half the murder per capita, and a minuscule amount of murder by firearms. You're right, there are variables, and if guns do not enter into those variables what is the point of OC/CC?

You don't know whether the guns enter into the variables or not. You can’t say that less guns would mean less crime in the US, you can’t say that less guns has meant less crime in England, you can’t even say that more guns in the US wouldn’t lead to a lower crime rate. English crime stats are meaningless.

Quote by: shaw I see it as doing more harm than good. Cops are called in all the time for someone carrying a gun, time they could be out stopping criminals. Another favorite saying from gun proponents, "remember, when you have seconds, it only takes minutes for the cops to come." Well, those cops are taking minutes to respond to the guy who feels a need to OC while sipping coffee and reading in Barnes&Noble! (True story) The agenda of OC.org and groups like that are hurting the nation.

Why would the police be called for someone open carrying?

Quote by: shaw Another thought is the quantity of guns. The more guns that are purchased and manufactured, the more will be stolen and end up on the streets. In trying to cure a "problem", that is actually a caricature of reality with its blown up stats and plethora of anecdotal evidence, people are actually making the problem worse.

Why would banning OC affect the quantity of guns? The guns would still exist; they’d simply be out of sight.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I am an authority on psychology, thanks very much.

Well, that may explain why so many people are so screwed up today at the hands of pill prescribing, over-anxious psychologists then, eh?

ZNYFRH said: For instance, you are characterized by fear. A prime example is that you said, "... flunk you" instead of "... fuck you" because you fear the consequences.

Yes, never mind that the rules specificly forbid that, and I actually respect this forum, its owners and moderators enough to curb my blatant use of curse words.........

Yes, it surely must be my fear......:rolleyes: :eek:

ZNYFRH said: You knew what would be implied by your comment, but by altering the word you exhibit your fear of reprisal.

What is there to fear? Points on my account? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

ZNYFRH said: Also, you want me to stop calling you paranoid and afraid, but instead you call it prepared.

Thats because there is a CLEAR difference between paranoia, and preparedness. You are the one who are "sidetracked" with attributing fear to everything I say, quite falsely I might add.

ZNYFRH said: What is it you are preparing for? Or better yet, why do you have to be prepared?

Smart people prepare, idiots wander around by the seat of their pants.
Kind of like smart people budget their money, while idiots squander their money and are left with no options when major events happen that require a bit of savings.

What is it I am preparing for? Anything that history shows may come down the pike.

ZNYFRH said: What is it you are afraid of?

I am not afraid of anything, except maybe burning to death, or drowning.

ZNYFRH said: The consequences of your fear are a danger to others. That's why you shouldn't OC a gun.

Says you, thanks, step aside now please. Buh-bye.

Did you see anywhere where I said "I do OC a gun"? NO.

Just more of you painting from the dark corners of your warped little mind, trying to paint others as the evil subjective monsters your warped perception sees.

Your false attribution of my words, my position, and the regular insults are becoming a bit tiring. Should I start reporting your posts, or are you adult enough to stop that, and actually carry your end of the debate?

[Osborn F Enready]

smallpox said: Defense is limited to what is necessary to repeal an offense from causing deadly or grievous bodily harm.

Correct, which is why we preserve the right to bear arms.

smallpox said: Chasing people off your "propertay" with a shotgun with the limited knowledge of laws to make a sound judgment is hardly a defense.

Who do you alledge is doing this, or arguing for it?

smallpox said: It's using a bazooka to chase off a fly, it's hazardous and useless.

So don't do it!

[Kamehameha34]

Guns are the most effective, portable means of neutralizing a threat. That is why you're afraid of them.

Not only do you want citizens to trade down for a less potent means of defense; you're trying to trim down the constitution to do so.

Let's get some things straight:

1. You don't have a right to feel safe. If you're in a situation where you feel you are in danger, you can alter the situation or leave it, should the former cease to be a viable option.

In this case, you can ask the man to conceal his firearm. He may comply, he may rightly tell you to "flunk" off. His decision should be a factor in your patronage, not the other way around.

2. A right does not cease to be when you think there is no reason for it, or disagree with some people in their use of it.

Some people may have an irrational fear of openly carried firearms -- what they are afraid of, I don't know. Do they think the man sitting next to them is more likely to get up and start blasting if allowed to carry a gun with his shirt tucked in?

Fear inspired by sensationalistic media should not be fostered or worse, encoded into federal law.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Why should the rest of us have to live in fear?

If you want to live with your irrational fear of visible firearms (as opposed to hidden firearms :rolleyes: ), do so in a country that doesn't explicitly grant the right to own said firearms to all of its citizens.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

Report away. I'm not breaking any rules.

You keep saying you want to be prepared, but your motivation is fear. You are afraid of the government taking over the country and enslaving the citizens. That makes absolutely no sense at all. There is no history of that happening in this country, nor any indication that it would happen. That's where I get the paranoia impression.

You keep saying that you also want to be prepared in case someone assaults your or otherwise threatens you. That is fear as well.

What you aren't understanding is that you're defending your right to carry the gun. This isn't about your right to carry the gun. You've been consistently missing that this is about your right to open-carry a gun. There is a big difference.

Also, if you want to report me, make sure you read through the insults towards me in your own post. I'm calling you paranoid and afraid. You're dropping little hints of insult here and there.

Kamehameha

I never said someone shouldn't have the right to carry a gun. You're doing the same thing as Osborn.

A gun isn't the most effective means of neutralizing a threat. It's the most effective means of killing a person. "Neutralize" in the sense of self-defense means that you've stopped them without killing them.

My fear of an openly carried firearm has to do with experience, not the media. And in my experience, people who want to OC their gun are doing so to intimidate others. They feel fear, so they want to inspire fear. That's the first problem.

The second is that the bullet from a gun is not controlled once it leaves the barrel. When two people have guns and decide to start shooting each other, they miss. When they miss, those bullets have to go somewhere. So because two idiots felt the need to flash their gun around, there is an increased risk of innocent casualties

So to get it straight for both of you... my problem is not with concealed carrying of a firearm. It's with open carrying. You're both so quick to start in with the Constitution and all the soap-boxing that you are missing the point.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Report away. I'm not breaking any rules.

Really? Accusing people of being paranoid and irrational is not a personal insult?

ZNYFRH said: You keep saying you want to be prepared, but your motivation is fear.

According to you, based on your limited information of me, your bias, and your background.

ZNYFRH said: You are afraid of the government taking over the country and enslaving the citizens.

Afraid of? No, prepared for the possibility and have taken steps to prevent it as much as possible within my own powers.

ZNYFRH said: That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Really? I suppose history really doesn't teach us anything about mankind and its societies then, does it?

ZNYFRH said: There is no history of that happening in this country, nor any indication that it would happen.

Excuse me?!? This country was founded by armed rebellion. There have been admissions that the CIA has used psychoactive, and harmful drugs on the U.S. people without their knowledge. There were Japanese internment camps, as well as secret prisons all over the nation, and IN OTHER NATIONS. We operate currently under guilty until proven innocent, and you have no freakin clue what you are talking about.

Keep on denying the reality that is all around you.

ZNYFRH said: That's where I get the paranoia impression.

Why, because you deny the reality of our lack of rights in our current nations government? Your option, but no basis with which to build a platform to cast dispersions on others because they don't share you irrational fears of armed citizens.

ZNYFRH said: You keep saying that you also want to be prepared in case someone assaults your or otherwise threatens you. That is fear as well.

Call it whatever you want. I call it common sense preperation for the obvious statistical possibility.

ZNYFRH said: What you aren't understanding is that you're defending your right to carry the gun. This isn't about your right to carry the gun. You've been consistently missing that this is about your right to open-carry a gun. There is a big difference.

In your mind.

ZNYFRH said: Also, if you want to report me, make sure you read through the insults towards me in your own post. I'm calling you paranoid and afraid. You're dropping little hints of insult here and there.

I give what I get. You give a lot, I returned a lot.

ZNYFRH said: You're both so quick to start in with the Constitution and all the soap-boxing that you are missing the point.

Or you just can't seem to argue your side clearly, making the points you want to make clearly. Of course, there is also your clear bias against guns in previous posts to guide this perception also.

[Kamehameha34]

I never said someone shouldn't have the right to carry a gun. You're doing the same thing as Osborn.

You're trying to create a situation in which it is prohibited to carry a firearm - while it is in plain view - to satisfy an irrational fear that isn't constitutionally valid.

A gun isn't the most effective means of neutralizing a threat. It's the most effective means of killing a person. "Neutralize" in the sense of self-defense means that you've stopped them without killing them.

Neutralize means to make ineffective. Their life loses all consequence in their initiation of violence.

My fear of an openly carried firearm has to do with experience, not the media. And in my experience, people who want to OC their gun are doing so to intimidate others. They feel fear, so they want to inspire fear. That's the first problem.

So does every rightist pundit when employing the phrase "war on terror". That doesn't somehow render the right to free expression arbitrary. Fear does not override constitutional rights.

The second is that the bullet from a gun is not controlled once it leaves the barrel. When two people have guns and decide to start shooting each other, they miss. When they miss, those bullets have to go somewhere. So because two idiots felt the need to flash their gun around, there is an increased risk of innocent casualties

You talk as if this is a regular occurrence.

If two cocky strangers decide to have a shootout at your local coffeehouse, I'll have no objection if you notify an authority.


It's like you skipped over my entire post. Barring the condescension, you could have copied and pasted your post from earlier in the thread.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Defense is the most NATURAL RIGHT, not arms are the most natural method of defense. Try not to make the debate out of things I didn't say please.

I'm not trying to make a debate out of things you didn't say, which is why I said so above....

Not really debating here, just trying to see your perspective on this.

I'm not even in debate mode yet... I'm just trying to see where you stand on a few of my questions before I even begin to debate.

In response to the explination.... Very well, so if you agree on this.... and everybody has the right to defend themselves.... then where do you get the argument of having the right to own a firearm for your defense? Is this just personal choice of weapon?

This is what I was asking.... you explained one thing, but you didn't supply me an addiquate link between the right to defend and the right to own a firearm for that defense... why a firearm and not a tank? Why not biological weapons? what seperates firearms from the other categories of things that can produce injury and/or death?

A Glock 9mm. The Glock is easy to maintain, acceptably accurate, and cheap to feed so I can stay in practice. Its versatile for close combat, but limited in range. Most self-defense scenarios take place in less than 15 yards, and that distance can be closed fast, so I want something that has stopping power, as well as fast repeatability for continued fire if it is required.

A taser in which I spoke of could meet all those requirements, except a lesser chance of your target being killed..... which could be developed and distributed easily if there was a demand.

I am an old fashioned guy, prefer carbereutors to fuel injection, and firearms to high-tech gadgetry. I wouldn't gamble with my life. (I would however entertain having both.....)

You're already gambling with your life with the firearm to begin with...

• Target grabs your gun in a struggle and shoots you.
• Target is missed and someone else on the street is shot. They in turn decide to act on their right like your's and shoots back at you, now you have two people to worry about and since you shot first, you're not looking at an easy way out.
• Target grabs for your gun in a struggle and it falls to the ground and goes off hitting you or the target resulting in death.
• Target gets into a struggle with you and one person squeezes the trigger and one is shot at close range...... or misses and hits a bystander.
• Bullet Jams, you're now screwed, target sees you have a gun, you intentionally pulled the trigger to shoot at them, so they pull their gun and unload into your brains.
• Bullet rechocets and comes back and hits you in the head, killing you (That happened to me once..... but it was a pellet )

They couldn't. They can't.

They can and will.... you just don't wish to admit it. Get two prods from a taser lodged into your skin and have the peson on the other end hold down the trigger everytime you decide to move..... I'm sure you wouldn't make it far.

Or tell me.... do you have a personal vengence thing for those to interfeer in your life that you feel you must have a firearm to kill them in retribution? If not... then what's the point of fighting for a weapon that does just that? Are you that hard up in wanting to kill someone?

No? Then get a taser.

Yes, and petition to stop the government giving out free tasers squandering the taxpayers tax money.

Of course.... and how much of your tax dollars are already being squandered towards gun related crimes in your country?

[Kamehameha34]

They can and will.... you just don't wish to admit it. Get two prods from a taser lodged into your skin and have the peson on the other end hold down the trigger everytime you decide to move..... I'm sure you wouldn't make it far.

One miss and you're screwed, not to mention the possibility of multiple combatants.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

You can put me on ignore now. You are clearly paranoid about the government taking over. There is nothing to support this other than you being scared. You can call it prepared, but in the end, it's because you are afraid of whatever it is you are preparing against.

I'm arguing my point quite clearly... that open carry of firearms is not beneficial and causes more problems than it starts.

You start in on Constitutional rights... this has nothing to do with the Constitution. I have no problem with you carrying a firearm. I have a problem with you carrying it in plain sight. That's why you're having a problem understanding me.. you are blinded by your need to soap-box about the rights and such... again. It gets old... you're like the Zhavric of civil rights. You copy-paste your same rhetoric regardless of its relevance to the topic.

So by all means... put me on ignore if you think I'm insulting you by saying you're either cowardly or paranoid.

Kam

I skipped over most of your post because you addressed the right to carry a gun. You didn't say why you think we should have the right to carry one openly.

How about this... I'll ask you a question and you give me an answer.

What is the advantage of openly carrying a firearm versus carrying one concealed?

Don't start in on the Constitution. Just a simple answer.

[Kamehameha34]

Of course.... and how much of your tax dollars are already being squandered towards gun related crimes in your country?

This is a little ridiculous. You want to strip away one of the only responsibilities of the government (protecting individual rights) to validate this arbitrary distribution of tasers?

We don't need tasers. We have guns.

[Kamehameha34]

I skipped over most of your post because you addressed the right to carry a gun. You didn't say why you think we should have the right to carry one openly.

The second amendment means that one can't be arrested on constitutional grounds for carrying a firearm, just as one can't be arrested for opinions expressed.

Maybe the concept of rights is alien to you, but it's generally accepted that one doesn't have to jump through hoops to get them.

What is the advantage of openly carrying a firearm versus carrying one concealed?

Smaller likelihood of pickpockets, for one. :rolleyes:

The burden of proof isn't on me. When proposing a law, the process doesn't entail all who disagree to explain why we don't need it before consideration of why we do need it.

Explain to me why you think fear is to be constitutionally protected.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kam The second amendment means that one can't be arrested on constitutional grounds for carrying a firearm, just as one can't be arrested for opinions expressed. Maybe the concept of rights is alien to you, but it's generally accepted that one doesn't have to jump through hoops to get them.

A law stating that firearms cannot be carried openly doesn't violate the Second Amendment. That's all that needs to be said on the Constitutional issue.

Quote by: Kam The burden of proof isn't on me.

This isn't science, this is law. I'm more than willing to change my stance if I can be shown what the advantage is to OC a gun.

I reject your comment about pickpockets. You clearly have never been to a busy marketplace or mall. The whole point of being a pickpocket is to not be noticed. Regardless, if you shoot a pickpocket you are guilty of murder.

The average citizen can't just open fire when they feel like it. They have to be able to prove that their life was in danger and that they pulled the trigger because they are 100% sure they were going to die.

That's why people who shoot a burglar in their homes often face stiff legal action. An unarmed burglar can't be proven to be a threat to life.

Onto protecting those who are afraid...

The OC of a gun disturbs "the peace" of wherever the person may be. A park, a mall, doesn't matter. Law enforcement is also tasked with keeping the peace. That means if someone is in the mall with a gun in plain sight and it starts to disturb mall patrons, the police can legally ask the person to conceal the weapon (if permitted) or remove the gun to their vehicle.

The grounds for that intervention is that the person is disturbing the peace.

[Kamehameha34]

A law stating that firearms cannot be carried openly doesn't violate the Second Amendment. That's all that needs to be said on the Constitutional issue.

Does a law that limits political punditry to certain hours of the day violate the first amendment?

Also, why are you so determined to defeat the main purpose of a firearm? People openly bear them because they want violence to be the penultimate answer to resolution of a conflict, ensuring that the very last is injury or death to their persons. That's how self-defense works.

This isn't science, this is law.

Burden of proof exists in both fields.

Clearly you haven't thought out the implications of your argument. Should a law banning purple shirts with green pants pass because there's no necessity for that particular ensemble?

You are proposing a law. Give me constitutional validation for it.

I reject your comment about pickpockets. You clearly have never been to a busy marketplace or mall. The whole point of being a pickpocket is to not be noticed. Regardless, if you shoot a pickpocket you are guilty of murder.

If I holster a gun next to the front pocket where I happen to keep my wallet, I seriously doubt that any attempts to pick it will succeed without first noticing the gun. Whatever line you have to cross to pickpocket someone with a gun readily hostered, I'm willing to bet that it is far past the one you have to cross to pickpocket an unstrapped streetwalker.

That's why people who shoot a burglar in their homes often face stiff legal action. An unarmed burglar can't be proven to be a threat to life.

How many burglars do you know that have volunteered to body cavity searches?

The OC of a gun disturbs "the peace" of wherever the person may be.

Legality has nothing to do with it. The highest authority is the constitution, regardless of the apparent lack of respect it seems to be getting.

You don't have a right to peace. You don't have a right to not be afraid.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kam You don't have a right to peace. You don't have a right to not be afraid.

Those other things you mentioned are non-sensical.

This is about the 2nd Amendment which reserves the right to bear arms.

This was further interpreted to mean in defense of self and country.

In the most recent look at the 2nd Amendment, the "Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia" decision in March 2007, it was decided that "bear" simply means "carry."

The issue, then is about how you bear arms.

This is still Constitutional and valid.

There are plenty of limitations on rights. Even though you have freedom of speech you can't yell, "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Yes, you are practicing your Constitution right to say what you want, but you are also... as I wrote before... disturbing the peace.

If people didn't have a right to peace, or a right to not be afraid, there would be no legal consequences for someone running into a crowded bank and yelling, "I'VE GOT A GUN!!"

You can carry a gun and be constantly "prepared" for any situation. But I don't support your right to have it out in the open. It's unnecessary. The only difference between OC and CC is that you want people to be intimidated. Walking around intimidating people disturbs the peace. It's that simple.

[Kamehameha34]

Those other things you mentioned are non-sensical.

I didn't know we were allowed to do that!

Everything you mentioned was non-sensical.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: then where do you get the argument of having the right to own a firearm for your defense?

That is what the 2nd amendment in the Constitution is all about, firearms, and the context is quite clear in the debate that facillitated its entry into the bill of rights.