Open Carry of a Dangerous Weapon

[shawmutt]

I believe there is no need to open carry in America in this day and age. You see, I’m not against guns, per se, I’m against bullshit. I’m against inflating stats to make an issue that really doesn’t exist. I have yet to hear a reason to carry a gun on my person at all times that is logically sound.
_______________________________________

To preclude semantics arguments --

Open Carry: the act of publicly carrying a firearm in plain sight.

Plain sight: broadly defined as not being hidden from common observation; varies somewhat from state to state.

Dangerous weapon: a firearm or any object designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury.
__________________________________________

Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va. (washingtonpost.com)

It seems there is a proliferation of open carriers descending on Virginia. When asked why they feel the need to carry (and I have), many get very defensive to the point of abrasiveness. They cite statistics, yell something about the second amendment, repeat some well-worn rhetoric, or offer anecdotal evidence. I have a feeling they carry not to protect themselves, but to further their agenda of getting the general public (known again as “sheeple” on the oc.org site) used to guns.

For brevity, I’ll stick with statistics. Snopes has an excellent article in dealing with one of the gun nut’s favorite story, Australia. It goes into detail about how stats can easily be manipulated.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Australian Guns Stats

The problem with crime stats is trying to figure out the seriousness of the crime. Rape, assault, etc. has so many variables. Was the assault a jealous girlfriend who lied to the cops, or a serious offence that landed the victim in a wheelchair? For this reason, I’d like to focus on one stat—homicide. Many gun proponents, in order to make their case, want Joe Average to believe he is going to be killed by a homicidal maniac at any moment.

Let’s look at some interesting stats:

An estimated 16,692 persons, or 0.0005% of the total population of US citizens were murdered nationwide in 2005. Somehow 99.9995% of the population escaped imminent danger.

"The proportion of homicides involving multiple victims increased gradually during the last two decades from 3.1% of all homicides in 1976 to 4.4% in 2005." This means that, in 2005, 734 people or .000002% of the population of the United States were victims of the multiple homicides that gun proponents want us to believe happen every day. 99.999998% of the population somehow lived through this horrible year.

Number of justifiable homicides by citizens, defined as ”the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony”? 192.

Two of the most common annoying sayings: “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns,” and “If you take guns away people will still find ways to kill each other (implying that the numbers will be the same). Let’s see:

Crime Statistics for England and Wales - Long-term national recorded crime trend: Homicide

There were a total of 765 homicide offences recorded in 2005/06, a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year. The figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings.

England's a much smaller country though, so let's look at per capita:

According to NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons, murders per capita in the US are 0.042802 per 1,000 people, murders by firearms are 0.0279271 per 1,000 people. In the UK, murders are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people, while murders by firearms are 0.00102579 per 1,000 people. This tells me that both assertions are false.

[ZNFYRH]

People will believe what they want to believe.

This issue has been debated before. There are some who believe they need to be able to defend themselves with a gun against any and all offenses that could be committed against them.

And there are some who believe that there will always be people with guns, but by making it a black-and-white issue there will be fewer people who acquire a gun simply because it is legal.

As far as open carry is concerned, I think it's obnoxious and evident of the extreme fear that person must be living with.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am an advocate of both concealed and open carry, as it is a right of the American people to have a competent method of defense from injustice and threat upon their life or the lives of their loved ones.

I don't know what there is here to debate, nor do I think statistics should in some way rule our lives or our rights, but I will support the right to carry and bear arms indefinitely.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn I am an advocate of both concealed and open carry, as it is a right of the American people to have a competent method of defense from injustice and threat upon their life or the lives of their loved ones.

So like the OP says, bullshit. Or paranoia.

Of the roughly 16,600 that were killed, notice there is no mention of the race, gender, or circumstances of the murder.

If you're a healthy male in the U.S., the odds of you getting held up are slim, especially with a lethal weapon. And if so, that person already has the gun pointed at you. What kind of fool thinks they can draw a gun faster than someone can pull a trigger?

So why need to carry a gun other than to satisfy an insecure need to intimidate others. I think it's paranoia, cowardice, or a healthy dose of both, to feel that you have to openly carry a firearm.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Shaw Two of the most common annoying sayings: “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns,” and “If you take guns away people will still find ways to kill each other (implying that the numbers will be the same). Let’s see: Crime Statistics for England and Wales - Long-term national recorded crime trend: Homicide There were a total of 765 homicide offences recorded in 2005/06, a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year. The figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings. England's a much smaller country though, so let's look at per capita: According to NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons, murders per capita in the US are 0.042802 per 1,000 people, murders by firearms are 0.0279271 per 1,000 people. In the UK, murders are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people, while murders by firearms are 0.00102579 per 1,000 people. This tells me that both assertions are false.

Why do people insist on using this argument in every gun control debate? You can't infer anything about crime in America based on crime stats from England. There are too many confounding variables.

As for open carry, I don't see any reason to ban it. The fact that the risk is low doesn't change the fact that it exists. In the minds of some people, openly carrying a gun protects them from this small risk, and I don't see any reason to deny them this peace of mind.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: So like the OP says, bullshit. Or paranoia.

Wrong, it's called a right to be prepared for the unknown, which may occur at anytime. Being prepared is not being paranoid, and it has proven to be far from bullshit manytimes in the number of people who have used armed defense to save lives.

Armed Citizen Archive, searchable to 1958:
NRA-ILA :: Armed Citizen

Armed Citizen current issues:
armed citizen

online news accounts of defensive gun use.
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

Armed Resistance to Crime:
The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Studying the studies:
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

ZNYFRH said: Of the roughly 16,600 that were killed, notice there is no mention of the race, gender, or circumstances of the murder.

Point?

ZNYFRH said: If you're a healthy male in the U.S., the odds of you getting held up are slim, especially with a lethal weapon. And if so, that person already has the gun pointed at you. What kind of fool thinks they can draw a gun faster than someone can pull a trigger?

Non sequitur, baiting.

ZNYFRH said: So why need to carry a gun other than to satisfy an insecure need to intimidate others. I think it's paranoia, cowardice, or a healthy dose of both, to feel that you have to openly carry a firearm.

Baiting.

You can think whatever you wish, as well as choose to not be armed if you wish. I choose to be armed.

[ZNFYRH]

It's not baiting, I'm just being honest.

For every criminal you scare away, how many normal people do you scare away?

Why should the rest of us have to live in fear?

You might say that we should carry a gun, too.

So why live in fear of a gunfight?

If someone is willing to pull the trigger, there is nothing I can do to stop it. Otherwise, they can take my wallet or cell phone or whatever. It's not worth me dying... and not worth taking their life either.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: It's not baiting, I'm just being honest.

Your expressing your opinion, which happens to be 180 degrees out from mine, and you are making non-sequitor and appeal to emotion arguments to combat logic.

ZNYFRH said: For every criminal you scare away, how many normal people do you scare away?

How does this matter to me again? Has this ever happened to me, scaring away so-called "normal" people?

Most normal people appreciate and respect people taking steps to avoid criminal activity taking place on or around their property. It has an uncanny way of affecting property values, perceived safety, general politeness.

Who would be scared away by less criminals seeking victims in an area known for armed citizens?

ZNYFRH said: Why should the rest of us have to live in fear?

In fear of what? I can't control your irrational or un-copeable fears, that is your job as an individual.

Normal people fear violent criminals, not gun owners. Gun owners are the people who stop violent criminals, a lesson we learned long ago which led to armed policeman.

I think you fear your peers to a level of questionability, probably based on the levels of extreme you know of, or fear in yourself, if you happen to have an ever present fear of guns in your daily life.

ZNYFRH said: You might say that we should carry a gun, too.

You have the right to do so, or not do so. Your choice.

ZNYFRH said: So why live in fear of a gunfight?

Why live in any kind of fear? Deal with your fears, don't succumb to them.

ZNYFRH said: If someone is willing to pull the trigger, there is nothing I can do to stop it.

Its your choice to ascribe to that theory, but many don't, and have saved their lives, and the lives of others by using armed defense.

ZNYFRH said: Otherwise, they can take my wallet or cell phone or whatever. It's not worth me dying... and not worth taking their life either.

What if they want to sodomize you, your family, your grandma, and her cats? What if they want to torture you, because in their irrational perception of reality you form the perfect picture and example of everything they hate in the world? What if there "desires" can't be satiated and still spare your life? What if "they" is the government, and "they" are at your door to take you off to the "showers" for delousing in preparation for working you until you die, if they don't exterminate you first?

That is why the people of this nation reserve and observe the right to keep and bear arms, and why you still have a country.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am an advocate of both concealed and open carry, as it is a right of the American people to have a competent method of defense from injustice and threat upon their life or the lives of their loved ones. I don't know what there is here to debate, nor do I think statistics should in some way rule our lives or our rights, but I will support the right to carry and bear arms indefinitely.

You can still technically ban and make firearms illegal in the US without breaking the constitution, since the constitution states the right to bear arms, not firearms.... this means any kind of arms can be used.... but that doesn't mean it has to be leathal, nor does it mean to use these arms against your fellow citizens..... but primarily against invaders, as I understand it.

But that's just my opinion, nor am I trying to tell anybody else they're wrong or right.... but like how most marijuana that is smuggled into your country comes from Canada, the majority of firearms confiscated in crimes here in Canada are usually traced back to the US.......

.... must be a counter balance we're trying to do to one another.... you guys want us to be more violent and stop being so dam mellow and take arms and shoot one another, and we're trying to get you guys stoned so you guys mellow out and stop shooting one another hoping one side will win over the other.... (That's just a joke, no need to get all technical on me about stats and useles banter)

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Normal people fear violent criminals, not gun owners.

How many normal people do you think see a difference?

They see the gun, not the person.

Quote by: Osborn What if "they" is the government, and "they" are at your door to take you off to the "showers" for delousing in preparation for working you until you die, if they don't exterminate you first?

You're not logical, you're delusional and paranoid.

When was the last time you had to draw a gun in self-defense?

Most people never have to. Or they are in situations where they aren't able to.

You're appealing to a different kind of emotion... fear. You're the one telling me to be afraid of a criminal. Yet you're the one wanting to always carry around the ability to kill a person who might only want your wallet.

[Praxius]

What if they want to sodomize you, your family, your grandma, and her cats? What if they want to torture you, because in their irrational perception of reality you form the perfect picture and example of everything they hate in the world? What if there "desires" can't be satiated and still spare your life? What if "they" is the government, and "they" are at your door to take you off to the "showers" for delousing in preparation for working you until you die, if they don't exterminate you first? That is why the people of this nation reserve and observe the right to keep and bear arms, and why you still have a country.

I have to personally disagree with you on this one.... esspecially when I seen the What-If's and buddy wanting to sodimize our entire families..... you don't need a fire arm for protection of those things:

Threat of Sodomy? ~ Counter with the claim you enjoy it, but mind the genital warts and HIV.

as for the tortue and all.... well there are also ways around that, and they have to be pretty effective in capturing you to get to this point....

You don't need a firearm to kill someone either.... there are countless parts of the body that can be used against someone....

And besides, just because you got a gun, doesn't mean you will have control over a situation.... let alone ever have control over anything that happens around you. If you don't have a gun, then you have a better chance of surviving and later on down the road have the opportunity to enact your vengence when they least expect it in a much worse manner then what you recieved...... with a gun.... they'll just think "Oh crap!" and shoot you dead..... sure you didn't go down without a fight, but what good did it do?

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

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Armed Citizen Archive, searchable to 1958: NRA-ILA :: Armed Citizen Armed Citizen current issues: armed citizen online news accounts of defensive gun use. Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun Studying the studies: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

Anecdotal evidence. In most of those cases, there's no way to prove what would have happened if a gun wasn't there, and the stories were told by the "victim", and wide open to cognitive bias. The way I see it, if someone wasn't killed, a gun wasn't used in self defense. Again, let's look at the stat of justifiable homicides--192 in the entire U.S. during the entire year of 2005! Hardly the nationwide epidemic gun proponents want us to think. Two anecdotal answers to your anecdotes and gun-cite: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (just as bad as your links but of the opposite flavor) and the fact that I've lived over 11,315 days without the need to carry a gun.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What if they want to sodomize you, your family, your grandma, and her cats? What if they want to torture you, because in their irrational perception of reality you form the perfect picture and example of everything they hate in the world? What if there "desires" can't be satiated and still spare your life? What if "they" is the government, and "they" are at your door to take you off to the "showers" for delousing in preparation for working you until you die, if they don't exterminate you first?

These are clearly cases of the availability heuristic. By using misleading vividness you are trying to prove the occasional occurance the rule.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Why do people insist on using this argument in every gun control debate? You can't infer anything about crime in America based on crime stats from England. There are too many confounding variables.

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?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy As for open carry, I don't see any reason to ban it.

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.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Normal people fear violent criminals, not gun owners.

How do you tell the violent criminals from the gun owners if everyone is walking around OC'ing? When my family is out in, say, a park, and I see a group of folks walking around OC'ing guns, I'm not going to stick around and see if they start shooting, I'm going to leave. I had a van drive up my driveway shortly after buying my house. I went out to meet it, a guy got out of the car, tshirt and jeans, and a gun strapped to his hip. He asked me if I saw his dog, but the last thing on my mind was what he was asking. I was thinking about how fast I can close the distance between us, looking for places to duck, watching his body language. It didn't make me "more polite", it made me want him off my property as fast as possible. It turns out he was an off-duty cop, but how was I to know? I'm not a "hoplophobe"--a term gun nuts are starting to throw around to shame people into accepting guns. I'm a member of the NRA, own rifles, and was brought up in a family full of gun owners and hunters. Yet no one among my friends and family feel the need to OC a gun while shopping for their groceries or walking their dog.

I still have yet to see a logically sound argument for OC.

[5010]

How about we compare victims? Out of 1,000 victims, how many were openly displaying a firearm before the murder? Is there such data available?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: shawmutt I'm not a "hoplophobe"--a term gun nuts are starting to throw around to shame people into accepting guns. I'm a member of the NRA, own rifles, and was brought up in a family full of gun owners and hunters. Yet no one among my friends and family feel the need to OC a gun while shopping for their groceries or walking their dog.

I think that says it right there.

I know enough about guns to be scared of how easy it is to kill someone.

There are too many shootings because people are CC'ing and have the gun on their person when a situation would have otherwise resulted in a black eye or just walking away.

Guns make it too easy to satisfy anger without thought of consequence.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: How many normal people do you think see a difference? They see the gun, not the person.

I contend your concept of "normal people" on those grounds then. You obviously doubt the reasonability and logical ability of your fellow peers to assume people to be so simple, and obviously confused.

I suppose you do have a point considering the anti-gun bias of the major media though, since they try to focus on the gun, and not the context of the facts.

Reasonable people take context into account.

ZNYFRH said: You're not logical, you're delusional and paranoid.

Yea, tell that to the survivors of the holocaust. To fear it happening to the point of altered activity or impaired activity, would be paranoia. Simply recognizing that it can happen, is called preparedness.

ZNYFRH said: When was the last time you had to draw a gun in self-defense?

Never, thankfully. I have taken my gun with me to investigate late-night disturbances before, but never had to "draw" my gun in self-defense.

ZNYFRH said: Most people never have to.

Correct, just like most people don't die from sunburn..... point?

Are you saying based on statistical probability we should disarm? As I said, you have that right, and the ability to exercise that right without affecting my right to arm.

ZNYFRH said: Or they are in situations where they aren't able to.

Hypothetical, far-reaching and basicly inapplicable. Prepared people minimize their risk in many ways, and having arms for defense is just one small part.

ZNYFRH said: You're appealing to a different kind of emotion... fear.

Incorrect. I am appealing to logic, reason and the intelligent people who have read and understand the lessons of history. I am not denying statistical support, nor am I attempting to avoid reasonably debateable content.

ZNYFRH said: You're the one telling me to be afraid of a criminal.

I am not "telling you" to do anything, except respect my rights as an American citizen. I am saying if one is afraid, one would do better to confront that fear than hide from it. The world is a scary place if you let your fear cripple your preperation for what can, has and will happen again.
Governments have been overthrown by arms, corrupted by money and power, and many peoples have suffered by the evils of corrupt government throughout history.

Corrupt governments deaths far outweigh the deaths ever caused by individuals, yet you ask people to lay down their arms and trust a government, a government I might add that has over the last several years shown its ability for internal corruption.

Absoultely unreasonable from my perspective, not to mention, outside the auspice of government authority.

ZNYFRH said: Yet you're the one wanting to always carry around the ability to kill a person who might only want your wallet.

So do policeman, FBI agents, CIA agents, Sheriffs, Military personnel of the world, armed security agents public and private, and a variety of other government agencies varying from the Food and Drug Adminstration to the IRS.

Are you making a point here?

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

My perspective is that I wouldn't willingly relinquish my arms, regardless of what the options are. The debate about the right to own arms for individuals is a non-debate to me, and totally beyond the realm of reasonable men to fathom. 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.

Those seeking to disarm the populace are seeking to enslave the populace, for one reason or many reasons, and they obviously fear their holdings in the eyes of their contemporaries and peers.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy As for open carry, I don't see any reason to ban it.

Sorry, have to add another thought to this. I just see which corporations sponsor groups like the NRA, and I wonder how much this OC/CC trend has to do with personal safety, and how much this has to do with raising the stock prices of sponsors. Gun sales were down, and a good way to get them up is to convince Joe Blow of his inevitable untimely demise.

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.

Quote by: "Osborn F Enready except respect my rights as an American citizen.

OC/CC is a privilege, not a right.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Yea, tell that to the survivors of the holocaust. To fear it happening to the point of altered activity or impaired activity, would be paranoia. Simply recognizing that it can happen, is called preparedness.

Wow. Comparing modern day America to the Holocaust. Do you really fear the government that much?

Quote by: Osborn Incorrect. I am appealing to logic, reason and the intelligent people who have read and understand the lessons of history. I am not denying statistical support, nor am I attempting to avoid reasonably debateable content.

You carry a gun because you are either afraid or you want to kill someone.

If the latter, that's a psychological issue. I pity you. I don't carry guns because I've had to shoot someone once, in self-defense. Now I rely on my own two hands.

If the former, again I wonder why you are so afraid.

Quote by: Osborn I am not "telling you" to do anything, except respect my rights as an American citizen.

And I don't respect the fact that you want that right because you are afraid. Because you are afraid, you want your gun hanging out in plain site at the grocery store where a passing child can easily touch it.

Or in a park where you will only intimidate the more dangerous element into singling you out.

Gunfights require two morons. If both of them are scared enough, there is no guarantee for the safety of those caught in between.

Did it occur to you that the consequences for your need to rest your own fears could result in the death of someone innocent?

Quote by: Osborn So do policeman, FBI agents, CIA agents, Sheriffs, Military personnel of the world, armed security agents public and private, and a variety of other government agencies varying from the Food and Drug Adminstration to the IRS. Are you making a point here?

Yes, one you clearly missed. Those people carry firearms to do their job and protect the rest of us and they are not only trained in their proper use but also face strong consequences for failed judgment. I trust them before I trust a scared militant who thinks a gun is the solution for his cowardice.

Quote by: Osborn Those seeking to disarm the populace are seeking to enslave the populace, for one reason or many reasons, and they obviously fear their holdings in the eyes of their contemporaries and peers.

Quite circular.

You are afraid of criminals and the government because you are paranoid.

The rest of us are afraid of paranoid militants like you.

Now ask yourself who the bad guy is.

[Praxius]

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.

You speak of natural defense.... but a firearm is not a natural defense, therefore your desire for a firearm being a right doesn't sound logical to me..... with that same mentality I should be able to fight for my right to own SAM's, a tank and possibly one or two nukes for my protection and my right of defense.... what specifically states that a firearm is the main right to protect? What makes a firearm more of a right over a nuke?

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?

If both can equally protect you, both could equally take down a suspect quickly.... 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?

Why?

[Osborn F Enready]