Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just my opinion, but it seems to me the majority of the "open carry" folks are practicing the same "in your face" thing that our boy "Rap" Brown was doing back in the 60s. They are generally upset with government and the "authorities", and are showing off.

YouTube is full of filmed confrontations between open-carry guys and police, obviously set up since a film crew just happens to be on hand....

We have seen these folks show up at political rallies and similar events, usually creating quite a stir from those responsible for security and getting a lot of media attention.

Seems rather childish to me.

This.

A thousand times this.

 

[shadron]

Just my opinion, but it seems to me the majority of the "open carry" folks are practicing the same "in your face" thing that our boy "Rap" Brown was doing back in the 60s. They are generally upset with government and the "authorities", and are showing off.

I'll agree with this. Well, that and shooting turkeys when they attack.

 

[Xulld]

Just my opinion, but it seems to me the majority of the "open carry" folks are practicing the same "in your face" thing that our boy "Rap" Brown was doing back in the 60s. They are generally upset with government and the "authorities", and are showing off.
YouTube is full of filmed confrontations between open-carry guys and police, obviously set up since a film crew just happens to be on hand....
We have seen these folks show up at political rallies and similar events, usually creating quite a stir from those responsible for security and getting a lot of media attention.
Seems rather childish to me.

Do you know what the police in Raleigh, Garner, and Clayton do when they see someone open carrying? Nothing.

I cant speak for all of those departments, but do you know what the Garner PD does when someone makes a MWAG (man with a gun) call? They ask, "is it in a holster"? Is the person doing anything else threatening or otherwise illegal? No? Then no one does anything. No unlawful Terry stops, thanks.

The fact that in many areas the police are unaware of the rights of the citizens is not an indication of the intent of the person who is being harassed. The fact that people who are regularly harassed by random officers who are not trained in how to handle a MWAG calls when no other factor is involved is a police training issue, and when some departments choose to continue to harass people they then get video cameras so they can fight for there rights. If left alone I promise all of the special snowflakes out there that want attention would find something more exciting to do.

If a person carries and no one makes a big deal of it, it does not validate the in your face BS.

You can generalize people who open carry all you like, but it just shows your own bias. If they have done nothing illegal and having a gun is a protected right, then no terry stop should occur just becuase they are carrying a gun. Exercising your rights is not a reason to be stopped by the police.

So my opinion is that the police who make such stops in open carrying states are the problem, not anyone you imagine wants attention.

A lot of people seem to disagree with that stereotype. From quick Googling, one source claims that the Old West murder rate was 1 in 100,000 -- significantly less than in modern anti-gun cities like DC.

Your right, its a bunch of unsupported hand waving. The Wild West meme is used against open carry without regard to facts.

Open carry IS a deterrent, the fact that so few people OC is not itself support against OC, it is a testament to the stigma of carrying a firearm in our society. Opencarry.org is a group of individuals trying to help remove that stigma, not trying to be a bunch of special snowflakes, or wannabe tough guys.


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

Does Shane look like the stereotypical in your face gun nut who wants you to be afraid of him, or wants to use his gun to intimidate?

If you met me, I think you would then at least have two poeple you could point to who did not fit that stereotype . . .

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yep. Pretty soon they'll be wishing they had gun homicide statistics like Illinois, the only state that prohibits carrying altogether.

Correlation/Causation. Do you have any evidence that the laws lead to the violence and not the other way around?

 

[Xulld]

Correlation/Causation. Do you have any evidence that the laws lead to the violence and not the other way around?

Ohh I agree, only the point of the law is to reduce the violence and there is no evidence it does that either.

Its one of those things where you remove law abiding citizens rights, or ease of use to try to curb crime and if it doesn't have that impact the laws just stay on the books. All the while a segment of the population is being restricted in their ability to defend themselves for nothing but a false sense of security.

In the absence of benefit, no law that restricts something as fundamental as self defense should exist

Laws effect law abiding citizens, and criminals find ways to hide the fact they are breaking the law anyways.

Loose loose.

 

[Bikewer]

The majority of firearm-related violence seems to be criminal-on-criminal. Gang-related shootings, drug dealers at war, that sort of thing. Or, domestic violence gone to the ultimate degree.
The vast majority of "muggings" involve no violence; only the threat. Burglaries that end in violence have gone bad; the burglar failed to determine that no one was home, or the resident returns unexpectedly and a confrontation ensues.
Same with robberies; most simply involve the threat of violence. The criminal does not want a no-statute-of-limitations homicide to look forward to, especially a weapon-aggravated homicide. Long sentences are the normal result, or Capital murder charges.

I suppose the typical mugger is unlikely to approach someone who has a pistol on his hip. On the other hand, the mugger not likely to approach the type of person who would carry a weapon.
As I said, these guys are reasonably adept at spotting "marks". Our students are good examples... (we get armed robberies at the rate of perhaps a couple a month off-campus) The kids are distracted; staring at their iPod or iPhone, or they have their nose in a book as they're walking along.
They have no situational awareness whatever. They are usually carrying steal-able goodies in plain sight; the iPhone, the iPod, a laptop in a backpack or messenger bag...

That's pretty typical. An alert, capable-looking fellow who is walking along purposefully is not likely to be a target.
We have had several incidents locally just this week where a group of four young men will pile out of a car and confront single women in shopping-mall parking lots. No weapons displayed, no violence as yet. They demand the woman's purse. With four potential attackers, they have been successful so far.

 

[Garrette]

So then shouldn't we view the failure of the times square bomber as a threat to the capacity of the average american to use political violence?

No.

Are you suggesting that there is never an instance in which political violence is justified?

If we really believed that we would understand that the odd terrorist act we don't agree with is the price we pay for our capacity for political violence.

I do understand that. Your reasoning is flawed.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Unless they had killed you, or maimed you then you would probably feel differently.

Have you never had anyone you know murdered or brutally assaulted were it left them a changed person either emotionally or physically?

If not have you never heard of second hand such things happening? I have never had my house burn down, nor the house of anyone I know, but I still keep a fire extinguisher both in vehicle and home. Do you think that is irrational?

Do you think if you had been carrying an openly holstered firearm clear to see that the people would have jumped you? I dont.

I treat my firearm just like my cell phone, fire extinguisher, and flashlights as emergency tools. Does you no good if left at home.

Whenever I hear someone say something like, well if I lived somewhere more dangerous . . . I always ask, statistically how dangerous does it have to be for you to change your habits? Also, what prevents the most vile of persons from driving some place normally seen as safe?

I was wrong to phrase my last paragraph as "I just don't see why", I am perfectly aware of why other people would feel the need for it. But to me it's not like having a tornado shelter, it's like living and sleeping in your tornado shelter every day while your house is above. Of course there could always come a time when you might need a gun, and you would always regret not having one if that happens and it could have changed things, but this doesn't mean it's not inconsistent behavior based on many more probable dangers you're not preparing for as actively and as regularly.

Too often someone carrying a fire arm causes more complications than I personally deem worth the risk. And I'm glad I don't feel compelled to do so.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I heard the poultry over there could be pretty hard-ass.

I actually fought off the rapscallions by myself after they had me on the ground for almost a minute stomping and punching me, I'd already been hit and kicked for a while before collapsing to the ground in the hope they would just finish it and leave me be, but they just would not stop. Somehow animal instinct kicked in and I just stood up and began to grapple with any wrist or leg I saw, keeping the large cluster of them at bay by continually twisting anything they got close to me and keeping it between me and them, all the while spinning and releasing and grabbing the first limb which was offered to me. I eventually threw one of them into the busy traffic which was oblivious to my plight, and a car stopped and began honking.

At that point they actually ran away and I was left there in shock.
My friend watched all this from a bridge he had retreated to at the start of the ambush. We were said to be on "their turf".

While sure, they could have seen me with a weapon in different situations and had been deterred, in this situation they would not have, as they rushed us from behind in the dark. I don't think this demonstrates a thing about the issue, but I'm glad I wasn't armed because I would or could have possibly killed someone over something petty.

 

[SezMe]

Open carry won't last long though. As soon as the bloodbath begins like it did in the other open carry states, the citizens of Oklahoma will be crawling on hands and knees to the statehouse to beg their babysitters back.

Wait, many posts in this thread argue that open carry does not increase violence. Which is true?

What other states have rescinded open carry?

The problem with reasonable restriction is that the government has shown time and time again that it will be used not to serve a specific legitimate governmental concern - instead it will be used to chip away at the core freedom. That's the clearly-articulated goal.

Please cite where this is clearly articulated.

 

[SezMe]

I recommend John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime.

Oops, bad move. Lott has been severely discredited...to the extent of making up his data. Thoughtful gun advocates avoid him like the plague.

 

[crimresearch]

Oops, bad move. Lott has been severely discredited...to the extent of making up his data. Thoughtful gun advocates avoid him like the plague.

Be fair. I'm sure that 'the dog ate my data set' has to be true at least once in a while...

 

[uk_dave]

When I want to blow somebodies mind, I point such folks to:

http://www.mvtf.org/

.

Not really sure why this should be considered 'mind blowing'



http://www.tankmuseum.org/

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Oops, bad move. Lott has been severely discredited...to the extent of making up his data. Thoughtful gun advocates avoid him like the plague.

Please elaborate. I suspect the passive voice: "has been severely discredited". Who diisputes Lott's data? In what publications?
Update: I searched...Tim Lambert. I agree. The purported phone survey of defensive uses in which no gun was fired sounds bogus. Still, the public data that Lott assembles on crime rates and carry laws, stands. Or do you know something else? I also object to sockpuppetry (Lott's "Mary Rouse").

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If it is such a right why don't former felons not on parole have these right?

Why not? What do you understand "right" to mean that would suggest the right to bear arms is unconditional? Do pedophiles who have completed their sentences get to work in day care centers? Do crooked accountants get to return to their jobs at the bank after they have served time for theft? Neither governments nor citizens have to pretend to forget the offense after a felon has served his time. In a free society, people have a "right" to do anything not specifically prohibited, but the right to drive a car, for example, is limited by age, mental competence (e.g., drugs and alcohol intoxication), and accident history. Screw up seriously enough, and you can lose your driver's license forever.

 

[Xulld]

I was wrong to phrase my last paragraph as "I just don't see why", I am perfectly aware of why other people would feel the need for it. But to me it's not like having a tornado shelter, it's like living and sleeping in your tornado shelter every day while your house is above. Of course there could always come a time when you might need a gun, and you would always regret not having one if that happens and it could have changed things, but this doesn't mean it's not inconsistent behavior based on many more probable dangers you're not preparing for as actively and as regularly.

Too often someone carrying a fire arm causes more complications than I personally deem worth the risk. And I'm glad I don't feel compelled to do so.

Well my best friend was murdered, and I live in a town with a very high crime rate . . . . do you really think me carrying a firearm is irrational?

I actually fought off the rapscallions by myself after they had me on the ground for almost a minute stomping and punching me, I'd already been hit and kicked for a while before collapsing to the ground in the hope they would just finish it and leave me be, but they just would not stop. Somehow animal instinct kicked in and I just stood up and began to grapple with any wrist or leg I saw, keeping the large cluster of them at bay by continually twisting anything they got close to me and keeping it between me and them, all the while spinning and releasing and grabbing the first limb which was offered to me. I eventually threw one of them into the busy traffic which was oblivious to my plight, and a car stopped and began honking.

At that point they actually ran away and I was left there in shock.
My friend watched all this from a bridge he had retreated to at the start of the ambush. We were said to be on "their turf".

While sure, they could have seen me with a weapon in different situations and had been deterred, in this situation they would not have, as they rushed us from behind in the dark. I don't think this demonstrates a thing about the issue, but I'm glad I wasn't armed because I would or could have possibly killed someone over something petty.

That was a very dangerous situation you are describing, a single well placed kick could have either killed you, or more likely caused you to become unable to protect yourself from further assault. It is easy to look at situations like this as worst case, but not even close. It could have been MUCH worse. I imagine you are fairly healthy? I have broken my back twice, first 1000 lbs of drywall fell on top of me fracturing L1, and rupturing that disc, and the second time L5 was fractured in a car accident which cause bulges in two other discs. I can walk, but not run, I can stand, but not sit down on the ground and still be able to get back up without support. I carry a cane with me on long walks in case I get tired and need to sit. I am 32 years old 6 foot 4, 250lbs and do not look infirm, which is the worst of both worlds becuase often people think if you are fit that you cant take a beating.

Do you expect everyone to be as fit as you, and capable of fighting off a gang of violent thugs?

The majority of firearm-related violence seems to be criminal-on-criminal. Gang-related shootings, drug dealers at war, that sort of thing. Or, domestic violence gone to the ultimate degree.
The vast majority of "muggings" involve no violence; only the threat. Burglaries that end in violence have gone bad; the burglar failed to determine that no one was home, or the resident returns unexpectedly and a confrontation ensues.
Same with robberies; most simply involve the threat of violence. The criminal does not want a no-statute-of-limitations homicide to look forward to, especially a weapon-aggravated homicide. Long sentences are the normal result, or Capital murder charges.

I suppose the typical mugger is unlikely to approach someone who has a pistol on his hip. On the other hand, the mugger not likely to approach the type of person who would carry a weapon.
As I said, these guys are reasonably adept at spotting "marks". Our students are good examples... (we get armed robberies at the rate of perhaps a couple a month off-campus) The kids are distracted; staring at their iPod or iPhone, or they have their nose in a book as they're walking along.
They have no situational awareness whatever. They are usually carrying steal-able goodies in plain sight; the iPhone, the iPod, a laptop in a backpack or messenger bag...

That's pretty typical. An alert, capable-looking fellow who is walking along purposefully is not likely to be a target.
We have had several incidents locally just this week where a group of four young men will pile out of a car and confront single women in shopping-mall parking lots. No weapons displayed, no violence as yet. They demand the woman's purse. With four potential attackers, they have been successful so far.

All the more reason to allow Campus Carry. An adult should not be disarmed just becuase they are seeking higher education. If anyone should be able to protect themselves its the good people in society that are trying to better themselves.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No.

Are you suggesting that there is never an instance in which political violence is justified?

So should we support the potential of the average american to engage in political violence or not? People like to talk about it, but they seem to balk at actually supporting it.

Or are we trying to pretend that handguns are militarily meaningful weapons now?

I do understand that. Your reasoning is flawed.

Terrorism is political violence you don't agree with.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why not? What do you understand "right" to mean that would suggest the right to bear arms is unconditional? Do pedophiles who have completed their sentences get to work in day care centers?

There is a constitutional right to work in day care centers?

Why do they have other constitutional rights then like protections against search and seizure and Habeus Corpus?


Either self defense and gun ownership is a real right, or it is not. You are arguing it both ways.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well my best friend was murdered, and I live in a town with a very high crime rate . . . . do you really think me carrying a firearm is irrational?

What are the statistics on if being a gun owner helps with that or not?

All the more reason to allow Campus Carry. An adult should not be disarmed just becuase they are seeking higher education. If anyone should be able to protect themselves its the good people in society that are trying to better themselves.

Or because they want a drink, but so many states bar carrying in bars.

 

[BStrong]

Not really sure why this should be considered 'mind blowing'



http://www.tankmuseum.org/

Unless I misunderstand, your Tank Museum is government (military) owned and run - The MVTF is the collection of one man, to include live artillery and MG's...and one lone demilled SCUD missile.

Jacques had a hilarious stoty about his son being asked what his dad did for a living "Collects Tanks and Machineguns."

Went over big in a California grade school at the time - the administration contacted Jacques to inform him there was something wrong with his son - he invited the school administrators up for a tour, and they decided there was nothing wrong with the son, but plenty wrong with Jacques.