Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Darth Rotor]

Clearly we need to hang Martha Stewart.

I thought that went without saying.

Now that we have concealed carry, lots of people are packing. Personally, I'm looking forward to a couple years down the road when people have realized what a pain it is to walk around with forty ounces of steel and lead in your shorts. The used gun market is going to blow up with sweet carry pieces for dirt cheap.

Heh, here I come!

If the pinnacle of a truly free society is that someone can carry a handgun when walking down to the 7/11, I'm glad I don't have "true" freedom. And all this "free to do what we want if it doesn't hurt people" stuff. Does anyone really believe this? Restrictions on abortion has just been cited. Try to exercise the freedom not to pay tax someday. Just build what you want on your land despite local building regulations. I could go on.

But as long as people can carry guns, we're free. Yeah, right.

If Zimmerman had been openly carrying, Travon Martin might have seen it, and concluded
"Whoa, that turkey's packing, I'll just head on out of here" rather than get involved in the confrontation that cost him his life.

Or, he might have ended up in a tussel, it being dark, and gotten the gun from Zimmerman as they wrestled, it being outside, and then wounded or killed him.

It's a mixed bag.

But what is important about freedom, American style, is the number of things you don't have to ask permission for. You seem to favor more "mother may I" and if it works for you all in Oz, fine.

(For the record, I'd rather see less "mother may I" for folks who'd like to light up some weed now and again, but that's a work in progress. Give it time. )

I own quite a few fire arms. No citizens have been killed by me with them. My freedom does not impinge on theirs.

Bust into my home? Not a good move. The above stat might change, but I'd rather scare an intruder off with a shotgun pointed at them than end up killing them. If it's dark, they might not be deterred, and eat some lead. That would be sad, even if it meets my immediate need for security.

Would I exercise open carry frequently? Probably not. Where I live I don't think I need 24/7 hot lead at my service in all places and times.

Were I living elsewhere, I might feel differently.

 

[The Dark Lord]

If the pinnacle of a truly free society is that someone can carry a handgun when walking down to the 7/11, I'm glad I don't have "true" freedom. And all this "free to do what we want if it doesn't hurt people" stuff. Does anyone really believe this? Restrictions on abortion has just been cited. Try to exercise the freedom not to pay tax someday. Just build what you want on your land despite local building regulations. I could go on.

But as long as people can carry guns, we're free. Yeah, right.

Restrictions against abortions are mostly BS. Not paying taxes hurts the whole country. And building something can hurt others. Who is hurt by law abiding citizens carrying guns around?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Restrictions against abortions are mostly BS. Not paying taxes hurts the whole country. And building something can hurt others. Who is hurt by law abiding citizens carrying guns around?

My guess is most often the citizens carrying when they make a gaffe and hurt themselves with said firearms.

"Ouch, my foot!"

 

[JJM 777]

There are few selected places where it is legal to open carry your "gun", ahem. But even there, strictly "unloaded", not in a state of readiness to immediate action.

 

[lionking]

Restrictions against abortions are mostly BS. Not paying taxes hurts the whole country. And building something can hurt others. Who is hurt by law abiding citizens carrying guns around?

What about smoking dope? Doesn't hurt anyone. I suppose that is BS too. The US isn't as free as many imagine.

 

[The Dark Lord]

What about smoking dope? Doesn't hurt anyone. I suppose that is BS too. The US isn't as free as many imagine.

Yep complete BS. One of the greatest injustices of our time.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Garrette]

I thought that went without saying.

Heh, here I come!

If Zimmerman had been openly carrying, Travon Martin might have seen it, and concluded
"Whoa, that turkey's packing, I'll just head on out of here" rather than get involved in the confrontation that cost him his life.

Or, he might have ended up in a tussel, it being dark, and gotten the gun from Zimmerman as they wrestled, it being outside, and then wounded or killed him.

It's a mixed bag.

But what is important about freedom, American style, is the number of things you don't have to ask permission for. You seem to favor more "mother may I" and if it works for you all in Oz, fine.

(For the record, I'd rather see less "mother may I" for folks who'd like to light up some weed now and again, but that's a work in progress. Give it time. )

I own quite a few fire arms. No citizens have been killed by me with them. My freedom does not impinge on theirs.

Bust into my home? Not a good move. The above stat might change, but I'd rather scare an intruder off with a shotgun pointed at them than end up killing them. If it's dark, they might not be deterred, and eat some lead. That would be sad, even if it meets my immediate need for security.

Would I exercise open carry frequently? Probably not. Where I live I don't think I need 24/7 hot lead at my service in all places and times.

Were I living elsewhere, I might feel differently.

I suspect you and I are very close in our views of gun rights and gun responsibility.

Not including the military I have worked several posititions in which I openly carried (licensed security, not law enforcement). In addition, I own a handgun. The most I've ever owned simultaneously is two, and I am considering going back to that number.

Where is my one handgun right now? In a storage locker over a mile from my home. But if I ever decide to keep it at home I will feel comfortable that I am impinging on no one else's rights or safety in doing so.

I have a concealed carry license; in addition, being a military officer equates to concealed carry rights in some states (my own being one of them), though I wouldn't push that; I doubt that most police officers or courts realize that law is on the books.

But I have only carried concealed twice in my life. The first was when I was brand new to handguns and carried unloaded for a day simply to learn the logistics of doing it. It aint' easy to carry concealed all day.

The second was on very rural private property that happened to be in the middle of moonshine and marijuana production territory. Though private, it was common for it to be traversed by rifle-toting good ol' boys, some of whom were simply walking home from squirrel hunting and some of whom were drunk or high or both. I'm glad I carried then as there was one point at which I made ready to pull it. Didn't have to, but the ability was there.

Which gets back to the responsibility part. A large part of why I didn't have to pull it is because I take pains to avoid it, just as I take pains to avoid having to throw a punch when not armed.

Ah, well. Long winded tangent. Sorry.

 

[Ranb]

If the pinnacle of a truly free society is that someone can carry a handgun when walking down to the 7/11, I'm glad I don't have "true" freedom.

I suppose as long as you are able to say anything you want about a person even though you have no rational reason to believe it is true, you can be happy as well?

Ranb

 

[Resume]

What about smoking dope? Doesn't hurt anyone. I suppose that is BS too. The US isn't as free as many imagine.

I would imagine marijuana laws will be modified before too long. Probably before my state (Illinois) allows me to protect myself as other states allow their law abiding citizens.

 

[Bikewer]

I've been fascinated with firearms since childhood back in the 50s. Maybe it was all those Westerns on TV.... Even then I was a bit of a gun geek; when we played "Davy Crocket" I complained that we didn't have proper toy guns for the period.
The other kids didn't seem to care.

Anyway, I've been part of the "gun culture" I suppose for a very long time. For many years, I was a very active shooter with over 40 handguns at one time or another and I reloaded for the bunch of 'em and spent weekends shooting up all that ammo.
Since I've been in police work from the late 60s, I've also been interested in the tactical use of these weapons; in combat shooting, carry, types and designs, tactics and training, etc.
So are numbers of my fellow officers. However, not all. There are many police officers who see the pistol or revolver as just another piece of belt equipment that must be carried because the department says you have to.
You have to qualify with it a couple times a year, which is easy enough that your skill level from initial training will likely get you through.

The "gun culture" is not monolithic. There are many thousands of people who see their guns as simple tools for outdoor recreation or sporting competition. Hunting, trap and skeet, target competion of many different kinds...
Many of these folks see nothing politcal in their weapons at all. It's just a piece of sporting equipment much like a baseball bat or a hockey stick. Somewhat more expensive....

There are others who are terrified of crime and/or physical attack. Many with good reason. Perhaps they have been victims. Perhaps they live in high-crime areas and know victims. Perhaps they just read the "if it bleeds, it leads" local news media.
Many of these people are not "involved" with firearms at all. They obtain a pistol, stick it in a nightstand, and that's it. Maybe it will be hauled out to a local range to "see how it shoots".
The owner will likely be none too skilled and the target full of widely-dispersed holes will be rationalized as "well, that would have got a burglar!" and the pistol tucked away again.

Then we have the folks who expend the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit. They are willing to invest time and money to go through the obligatory course and to burn enough ammo to acheive some proficiency. These enthusiasts likely start out carrying religiously (as one might never know....) but as noted above, they quickly learn what all police officers already know, carrying a firearm is generally a PITA.
Soon the pistol gets relegated to the glove box, or the wife's purse... Or just left home and only carried "when I think I might need it."

There's another class of people who see their firearm as all bound up in political freedom and individual rights and being a "bulwark against tyranny". These folks may be tempted to join local militia groups. They are politically active. They see firearm ownership as an "individual" right and SCOTUS has affirmed that.
They may fantasize about defending the country from some invader or other, or more likely resisting the takeover by totalitarian forces, whoever that may be.
The "minuteman" ideal is deeply ingrained in American society.

Here's a little incident from my own experience. I got a call about "we haven't seen poor old Mr. Johnson for several days...He's getting on, you know."
Sure enough, poor Mr. Johnson had expired in his sleep. While waiting for the Medical Examiner, I looked around to find some ID. His wallet contained his personal stuff, and an NRA "lifetime member" card.
Sure enough, the house was full of guns. Most all of them entirely legitimate long arms and collectible militaria. However, in a drawer I found a Smith & Wesson revolver which had all the serial numbers and identifying marks neatly removed by milling them out... No mere sanding or obliteration.
Why did this old gentleman feel the need to keep an illegally-modified and "untraceable" weapon? Who knows?

 

[arthwollipot]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that perspective, Bikewer.

 

[Parsman]

A question. I have no problem if a society decides that guns should be available to citizens, and as far as possible good controls are in place to prevent their misuse (murder, theft etc). No matter what measures you take, bad people will do bad things with whatever tools are at their diposal so you can't blame gun owners for that.

However - and it is a big however - my understanding of the current bloody and deadly drugs war in Mexico is that it is largely armed through the USA. Large amounts of the weapons are made available from the existing gun culture that does exist in the USA. Is this correct? And if so, would some sort of social responsibility for your continent make you favour tighter controls on certain types of weapons and their mass production for civilians to attempt to alleviate the impact? A genuine question as I have no knowledge of or interest in guns per se.

 

[Rufo]

[...]
However - and it is a big however - my understanding of the current bloody and deadly drugs war in Mexico is that it is largely armed through the USA. Large amounts of the weapons are made available from the existing gun culture that does exist in the USA. Is this correct? And if so, would some sort of social responsibility for your continent make you favour tighter controls on certain types of weapons and their mass production for civilians to attempt to alleviate the impact? A genuine question as I have no knowledge of or interest in guns per se.

This and similar issues always strike me as somewhat absent from most gun control debates. My understanding from previous discussions is that most crime involving guns is committed with illegal rather than legally purchased and licensed firearms, but where do these firearms come from? Aren't at least some of them stolen or otherwise aquired from citizens who have purchased them legally?

One of the primary differences between a gun and, say, the previously mentioned fire extinguisher is the question of what happens once the gun is out of the hands of the (hopefully) responsible person who got hold of it legally. As has been pointed out, a fire extinguisher can definitely be a deadly weapon, but not much moreso than many other blunt objects easily aquired by a violent person. However, a firearm is designed with this purpose in mind. If someone stole my fire extinguisher, my primary worry would be getting a new one. If I owned a gun and someone stole it, I'd be more worried about where it went.

As I see it, simply increasing the amount of firearms in circulation by putting one in your own hands seems irresponsible. If it weren't for this, I might be a lot more live-and-let-live on the issue. What's a gun-owner's take on this?

 

[3point14]

Ah, I don't like guns, I really don't. I think that nobody should be allowed to own guns, that way nobody would be allowed to make bullets, and with no bullets, no-one would get shot.


However, in the real world...


I have had my perceptions somewhat altered by the discussions here, and I can appreciate that a culture that has had, ingrained in it's culture and it's politics* the right to own and carry a gun, and for the majority of americans it is a right (the difference in the status of healthcare as a 'right' on both sides of the atlantic is a good analogy here).

Taking the pragmatic standpoint - that the US population has guns and isn't prepared to give them up with good reason - then one has to present good reason, proper statistical analysis that the banning, or extreme legislative control, of guns will make the country a safer place.

As I understand it from the statistics, you'd get better results banning swimming pools.


I still don't like guns, but you've got to do the critical thinking thing.




(* Although in a really, really badly worded way. The founding father's could have saved everyone a lot of argument if they'd been a bit more specific.)




ETA: I still have a bit of a problem with what armament is allowed. I'm (almost) certain that no-one thinks that a private citizen with a nuclear warhead is a good idea.

 

[Resume]

As I see it, simply increasing the amount of firearms in circulation by putting one in your own hands seems irresponsible. If it weren't for this, I might be a lot more live-and-let-live on the issue. What's a gun-owner's take on this?

Responsible gun owners should take responsible provisions for the security of their weapons. I know I do, and no, I won't say what those are on a public forum. Also it would be nice if people just stayed the hell out of houses where they don't belong, and kept their hands off property that isn't theirs. Like guns for instance. That way wouldn't get into black market circulation.

 

[Xulld]

I'm very sorry to hear that, and to have inadvertently used a metaphor that was so close to what must have been an awful experience. . . . . I apologise for coming across as condescending. It isn't my intention. And it isn't that the government isn't trusting me, it's that the government isn't trusting crazies.

Thank you, I do appreciate your apology and its whole heartedly accepted. I want to do the same and apologize for my comment. This is a personal issue for me. I want to try to remain objective however and make sure this is about the topic and not my personal experiences.

I think there is a problem when the government retricts access to a tool which allows an equal footing with the "crazies" who will ignore the law. To me it is not only overkill, but takes away your self determination when it comes to a deadly conflict. You are forced into a situation where to be a law abiding citizen you must flee or be a victim if someone decided to use a firearm against you, or had an overwhelming force advantage.

I don't own a gun, but I do own a fire extinguisher. I don't carry it with me at all times, I keep it under the sink in the kitchen because statistically the kitchen is where I will most likely need it, if I ever need it.

I keep one in my truck with me and under the sink, not only to avoid a potential car B Q, but also in case I need to put out a fire away from home. Being prepared is important to me, but I understand your position. Most gun owners leave there guns at home where they feel they will most need them. The reality is that while fairly rare, it is not unheard of to need a firearm, or fire extinguisher outside of your home.

On a slightly different tac, I believe the fundamental principles of the right to bear arms can be best explained from an article I read once that talks about force, and reason, and why tools that equalize force are actually good becuase they then require reason to gain what you want.

Why should gun ownership be a "right" anyway?

Because force advantages removes the need to reason. In civil society reason is what should get things done, not force.

http://www.reasonorforce.com/2010/09/why-i-carry-gun.html

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Click the link to read the full article, it is short and to the point.

But as long as people can carry guns, we're free. Yeah, right.

Actually yes. Why? Because there are consequences to removing a persons freedom when they have the ability to fight back. Anyone using force to enact there own will despite your own will is a removal of your own freedom. Why should only the young, fit, and capable be able to self determine?

 

[Garrette]

On a slightly different tac, I believe the fundamental principles of the right to bear arms can be best explained from an article I read once that talks about force, and reason, and why tools that equalize force are actually good becuase they then require reason to gain what you want.

Because force advantages removes the need to reason. In civil society reason is what should get things done, not force.

http://www.reasonorforce.com/2010/09/why-i-carry-gun.html



Click the link to read the full article, it is short and to the point.

Precisely my reasoning when I talk to people who ask my advice on gun ownership (actually, I extend the argument to all weapons).

To avoid the well-intended person's premature resort to use of weapon, I advise never getting one until prepared not to use it.

 

[RandFan]

On a slightly different tac, I believe the fundamental principles of the right to bear arms can be best explained from an article I read once that talks about force, and reason, and why tools that equalize force are actually good becuase they then require reason to gain what you want.

Because force advantages removes the need to reason. In civil society reason is what should get things done, not force.

http://www.reasonorforce.com/2010/09...carry-gun.html

In theory I like the argument. I like it a lot. But I have some questions. Doesn't the theory require everyone to carry? Also, will a firearm help me reason with a police officer?

 

[Xulld]

In theory I like the argument. I like it a lot. But I have some questions. Doesn't the theory require everyone to carry? Also, will a firearm help me reason with a police officer?

It is not a proscription for a peaceful society, it is a description of a fundamental rule of social interaction. (I do personally believe that if more people were trained and armed that crime would move to less violent and more stealthy places.)

There is only force and reason. How we learn to engage with each other within society once we understand this is a far more granular and intricate of a question. Force also goes beyond physical force. The threat of damage to life style or standard of living is also force.

The police are not beyond reproach, and more than once we have had officers who commit horrendous offenses, in fact the supreme court has ruled that if an officer is abusing his authority and attempting to kill, or otherwise harm an innocent, the person is protected from prosecution if he used lethal force against the officer. (Plummer v. State)

In a perfect world no one would ever need to do such a thing. Our world continues to prove to be much less than perfect.

This acknowledgement that a person innocent of crime can defend their lives against unwarranted attack is a long standing fundamental principle of peaceful societies and it would be contradictory to think this does not apply to law enforcement.

 

[RandFan]

It is not a proscription for a peaceful society, it is a fundamental rule of social interaction. (I do personally believe that if more people were trained and armed that crime would move to less violent and more stealthy places.)

There is only force and reason. How we learn to engage with each other within society once we understand this is a far more granular and intricate of a question. Force also goes beyond physical force. The threat of damage to life style or standard of living is also force.

The police are not beyond reproach, and more than once we have had officers who commit horrendous offenses, in fact the supreme court has ruled that if an officer is abusing his authority and attempting to kill, or otherwise harm an innocent, the person is protected from prosecution if he used lethal force against the officer. (Plummer v. State)

In a perfect world no one would ever need to do such a thing. Our world continues to prove to be much less than perfect.

This acknowledgement that a person innocent of crime can defend their lives against unwarranted attack is a long standing fundamental principle of peaceful societies and it would be contradictory to think this does not apply to law enforcement.

Thanks for the response. And let me first concede your point about not being a proscription for a peaceful society. I was laboring under a false impression.

If a police officer wants to detain me and I believe that he or she lacks probable cause then I'm not sure the gun will assist me much. I suspect that a firearm will only help me if I'm in reasonable fear of my life. Otherwise his force trumps mine, correct?

Otherwise, I accept the premise of the article in theory.

Re: highlighted text. I was a huge John Lott follower (I remained so even after the accusations of fudged data). Purchased his book and cited chapter and verse. I mention Lot only to point out that I'm not a gun control advocate. It's just I'm no longer convinced on either side. I'm taking the null hypothesis and each issue on a case by case basis. I think the problems of violence far too complex and the data and argument too controversial.