Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Ranb]

Of course you will say that it's just a coincidence that the US has high ownership of guns and high homicide rates (compared to Australia).

I was just asking for information. I have never said what you claim nor should you have any rational reason to think I did. Do you have any evidence to support your accusation? Or are you one of those people on this forum that feel they can make any reckless accusation they want as long as it is based on some sort of bias against firearms/owners?

Ranb

 

[arthwollipot]

It seems to me that whenever anyone (me, or lionking for example) questions or challenges the American gun culture, people are very quick to take it very personally. Any idea why this might be?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Open carry has not been legal in Australia, at least not since colonial times. You might want to look at homicide rates in Australia vs the US. Of course you will say that it's just a coincidence that the US has high ownership of guns and high homicide rates (compared to Australia).

"Coincidence", no, but neither are the two directly analogous. The US has a problem with crime that has nothing to do with our gun control laws and everything to do with the history and culture of our inner cities.

The high homicide rates in the US are very strongly linked to gang violence, and do not noticeably decrease in areas with strong gun control laws (the murder rates in cities like DC and Newark are high despite particularly strict controls on guns). On the other hand, rural areas with very high rates of gun ownership, but no appreciable gang violence, have lower crime rates generally, including homicide rates.

A sudden crackdown on guns in the US would no more eliminate our urban violent crime problem that a sudden loosening of gun regulations in Australia would create a violent crime problem there. The causes are elsewhere.

 

[Garrette]

In the US no. [in regard to my question about any justified political violence]

Thanks. I agree that this is the case. I do not agree, however, that it is guaranteed to remain the case.

And I don't see political violence as a good argument for looser arms control laws.

Depends, I suppose, on which end of the barrel we stand at the moment of decision.

There is no perfect answer, including loose gun control, but also including tighter gun control.

 

[Garrette]

It seems to me that whenever anyone (me, or lionking for example) questions or challenges the American gun culture, people are very quick to take it very personally. Any idea why this might be?

Many do, but not just on this issue, and it often works in reverse, i.e., whenever anyone positively defends the "American gun culture"* people are very quick to take it very personally.

Speaking for myself, I can go the emotional route (not personal, I think) more easily than I would like, but I try to minimize it, and when I see it happening I remove myself from the conversation.

I don't think it is the discussion so much as it is a perceived experience that the other side will once again trot out what they have trotted out so often and which are not convincing arguments. I feel safe in assuming that the other side reacts similarly.

 

[Garrette]

"Coincidence", no, but neither are the two directly analogous. The US has a problem with crime that has nothing to do with our gun control laws and everything to do with the history and culture of our inner cities.

The high homicide rates in the US are very strongly linked to gang violence, and do not noticeably decrease in areas with strong gun control laws (the murder rates in cities like DC and Newark are high despite particularly strict controls on guns). On the other hand, rural areas with very high rates of gun ownership, but no appreciable gang violence, have lower crime rates generally, including homicide rates.

A sudden crackdown on guns in the US would no more eliminate our urban violent crime problem that a sudden loosening of gun regulations in Australia would create a violent crime problem there. The causes are elsewhere.

There is another recent thread somewhere about education, centering on Asian success in that area as compared to American shortcomings. Wolfman (I think) posted an interesting comment about how studies are beginning to show that the primary cause of academic source is parental involvement in education (or somesuch words to that effect). $-per-student, teacher salaries, curricula, etc., all have an effect, but they are secondary to what happens at home.

I recall similar findings on other topics like drug use and teenage sex.

I think, perhaps, something similar is happening with crime rates (and specifically gun crime rates). Many factors affect crime rates, and ease of gun acquisition certainly affects the likelihood of gun crime rates, but I would surmise that the largest factor is home life and early and constant adult guidance.

 

[uk_dave]

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.

The Tank Museum is a registered charity and independent Museum, accredited by The Museums Libraries and Archives Association.

http://www.tankmuseum.org/Help_Us

Still not sure what point you make by your example. Is it that this guy is allowed to have these 'weapons' without any licensing, background checking or compliance with state sanctioned requirements for safety and security?

The thing that gets me is that in order to fully comply with the 2nd amendment there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the possession of weapons, not even a system of licensing since this by implication means the right to possess a weapon could be denied.

The fact that the majority of Americans appear willing to accept restrictions or controls on what weapons they can have pushed this debate into the realms of how far those restrictions can go.

 

[Ranb]

It seems to me that whenever anyone (me, or lionking for example) questions or challenges the American gun culture, people are very quick to take it very personally. Any idea why this might be?

I rarely care what non-Americans have to say about gun culture as long as it is true.

If your statement was directed at me, then I must point out that lionking directed a question at me personally and probably not at gun culture in general.

Ranb

 

[arthwollipot]

I rarely care what non-Americans have to say about gun culture as long as it is true.

I'm not at all sure exactly what you mean by that.

If your statement was directed at me...

It wasn't. Well, not just you. You seemed to illustrate the principle at the time and therefore prompt my observation, but the observation was not directed at you specifically.

 

[crimresearch]

http://www.tankmuseum.org/Help_Us

Still not sure what point you make by your example. Is it that this guy is allowed to have these 'weapons' without any licensing, background checking or compliance with state sanctioned requirements for safety and security?

The thing that gets me is that in order to fully comply with the 2nd amendment there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the possession of weapons, not even a system of licensing since this by implication means the right to possess a weapon could be denied.

The fact that the majority of Americans appear willing to accept restrictions or controls on what weapons they can have pushed this debate into the realms of how far those restrictions can go.

That 'no restrictions whatsoever' myth has been debunked so many times it isn't funny. The rights denoted in the Constitution are not infinite or unlimited, and they can be waived or forfeited. They are subject to a balancing test.

In other news, the theory of gravity may cause small objects to fall to the ground instead of flying up into space.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

It seems to me that whenever anyone (me, or lionking for example) questions or challenges the American gun culture, people are very quick to take it very personally. Any idea why this might be?

It's because the "American gun culture" has more facets than you think. You attack it as if it was some monolithic entity. For every liquor store stick-up man with a Lorcin .25 in his pocket, there are fifty old guys with shotguns that have never and will never shoot anything more dangerous than a clay pigeon.

The reason we don't like you gun-free countries bitching about our gun policies is the same reason gay people don't like Republicans carrying on about gays having sex in highway rest stops. It's applying the negative behavior of the minority to the whole group.

Guns do not equal bad. The quicker you get that through your head the better off you'll be when discussing the "American gun culture". Especially with law-abiding American gun owners.

 

[Ranb]

You seemed to illustrate the principle at the time and therefore prompt my observation, but the observation was not directed at you specifically.

I don't see how I illustrated anything about gun culture in my first post on this page other than a lack of laws in some states. lionking made a statement about his/her culture and I simply asked a few questions.

Ranb

 

[arthwollipot]

Guns do not equal bad. The quicker you get that through your head the better off you'll be when discussing the "American gun culture". Especially with law-abiding American gun owners.

Okay, guns do not equal bad. I'm pretty sure I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is Guns equals GOOD, which opinion I have seen expressed many times. Also the opinion "I have a right to carry a gun, therefore I should (occasionally must) carry", which I have also seen many times.

Why the Oklahoma result is considered a "victory" is something I have some problems understanding. Why open carry is a good thing. We in Australia would not consider that a "victory". We'd consider it a backward step. It's undoubtedly a cultural thing - one I have some trouble with.

It's pretty clear that the evidence connecting gun ownership with gun crime is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, so there's really no argument to be made on either side there. It's been a minor goal of mine to try and understand why Americans take their guns so damn seriously.

 

[3point14]

Never mind.

 

[Aepervius]

Do you own a fire extinguisher? Are you afraid of fire?

I don't own an extinguisher, and whereas fire is more often happenning than gun accident , fire is mostly *accidental* and never "remote" whereas gun is a weapon and kill at a distance. You are comparing apple to orange.

But then again I haven't expected anything else in gun toting thread .

 

[crimresearch]

Okay, guns do not equal bad. I'm pretty sure I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is Guns equals GOOD, which opinion I have seen expressed many times. Also the opinion "I have a right to carry a gun, therefore I should (occasionally must) carry", which I have also seen many times.

Why the Oklahoma result is considered a "victory" is something I have some problems understanding. Why open carry is a good thing. We in Australia would not consider that a "victory". We'd consider it a backward step. It's undoubtedly a cultural thing - one I have some trouble with.

It's pretty clear that the evidence connecting gun ownership with gun crime is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, so there's really no argument to be made on either side there. It's been a minor goal of mine to try and understand why Americans take their guns so damn seriously.

Nothing you've posted gives any evidence that you are trying to understand anything.

It reads as though you have a TV inspired fantasy in your head, and all information about Americans is going to be crammed into that box, even if you have to shoot it to make it fit.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Okay, guns do not equal bad. I'm pretty sure I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is Guns equals GOOD, which opinion I have seen expressed many times. Also the opinion "I have a right to carry a gun, therefore I should (occasionally must) carry", which I have also seen many times.

Why the Oklahoma result is considered a "victory" is something I have some problems understanding. Why open carry is a good thing. We in Australia would not consider that a "victory". We'd consider it a backward step. It's undoubtedly a cultural thing - one I have some trouble with.
It's pretty clear that the evidence connecting gun ownership with gun crime is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, so there's really no argument to be made on either side there. It's been a minor goal of mine to try and understand why Americans take their guns so damn seriously.

Harley-Davidson sells a sticker that says, "If I have to explain, you'll never understand."

Seems relevant here. You're operating from an ingrained belief that guns are bad. I mean, your government couldn't possibly be wrong, right?

We have always had guns. We will always have guns. Some of us enjoy shooting sports and hunting. Sure, there's some bad apples in this barrel, but not enough to spoil the whole thing.

 

[Xulld]

Do people often kill other people with fire extinguishers?

My best friend and first love was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. I know your response was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but fire extinguishers can save lives via stopping fire, and guns can save lives via stopping a violent attacker. However neither can do that if you do not keep them at hand. They are both useful tools, that was my point.

I don't own an extinguisher, and whereas fire is more often happenning than gun accident , fire is mostly *accidental* and never "remote" whereas gun is a weapon and kill at a distance. You are comparing apple to orange.

But then again I haven't expected anything else in gun toting thread .

No, they are not apples to oranges. Both are emergency tools which serve purposes, which you must keep with you at all times for them to be effective becuase you cannot know when you will need it. Unless you are psychic . . .

You should get a fire extinguisher . . . unless your government has banned them.


Anytime anyone ever argues against gun ownership, or further the carrying of a firearm for defensive purposes its always an argument from statistics. As if a rare event makes preparing for that rare event irrational.

 

[GeeMack]

Okay, guns do not equal bad. I'm pretty sure I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is Guns equals GOOD, which opinion I have seen expressed many times. Also the opinion "I have a right to carry a gun, therefore I should (occasionally must) carry", which I have also seen many times.

Right there... with the "therefore"... that's where you're being dishonest.

Why the Oklahoma result is considered a "victory" is something I have some problems understanding. Why open carry is a good thing. We in Australia would not consider that a "victory". We'd consider it a backward step. It's undoubtedly a cultural thing - one I have some trouble with.

The freedom to do as we please when we aren't negatively affecting the lives of others is the good thing. It's a victory to maintain or achieve that position. If it's not a good thing in Australia to be allowed to do as you please as long as it doesn't negatively affect others, that's a problem for you to deal with there.

It's pretty clear that the evidence connecting gun ownership with gun crime is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, so there's really no argument to be made on either side there. It's been a minor goal of mine to try and understand why Americans take their guns so damn seriously.

If you'd like to understand, you should start by paying more attention to what's actually being said instead of making stuff up to suit your preconceived notion. This bears repeating...

Nothing you've posted gives any evidence that you are trying to understand anything.

It reads as though you have a TV inspired fantasy in your head, and all information about Americans is going to be crammed into that box, even if you have to shoot it to make it fit.

 

[Xulld]

It seems to me that whenever anyone (me, or lionking for example) questions or challenges the American gun culture, people are very quick to take it very personally. Any idea why this might be?

Maybe if you did not come off as morally superior for having a government which does not see fit to trust you with a defensive tool.