Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Xulld]

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?

Science is also descriptive. We get to see nature as it is, but it does not tell us what to do in every situation that will best benefit ourselves personally. In the same way the idea that force and reason are the most fundamental way to interact also does not tell us how to act in every situation.

In that sense anything that leveled the force equation would accomplish the same goal of requiring reason to get what you want. Firearms are not specific to this fact.

About your specific question: My default reaction to a police officer is to be respectful and make no assumptions about his intent. If he wants to disarm me I will explain that I do not consent to searches and seizures, but I will not resist. In that respect if an officer wanted to do me harm he could and my weapon would be useless.

I dont see how this is really relevant however. Unless you were fishing for real life examples where it may be better to be disarmed than fight back to which I say . . . . duh.

 

[RandFan]

Science is also descriptive. We get to see nature as it is, but it does not tell us what to do in every situation that will best benefit ourselves personally. In the same way the idea that force and reason are the most fundamental way to interact also does not tell us how to act in every situation.

In that sense anything that leveled the force equation would accomplish the same goal of requiring reason to get what you want. Firearms are not specific to this fact.

About your specific question: My default reaction to a police officer is to be respectful and make no assumptions about his intent. If he wants to disarm me I will explain that I do not consent to searches and seizures, but I will not resist. In that respect if an officer wanted to do me harm he could and my weapon would be useless.

I dont see how this is really relevant however. Unless you were fishing for real life examples where it may be better to be disarmed than fight back to which I say . . . . duh.

Just to make clear, science informs our reasoning to assist us in making decision. Subjective values coupled with logically valid reasoning and objective facts can lead to rational decision making.

I bring up the police officer is to point out that force is not always equitable even if evenly armed. And in fact, I would posit that it rarely is. An officer of the law has the force of govt, govt resources, many laws to aid him in his job and trained prosecutors to make the balance of force inequitable.

But there are other examples. If my wife and I go out and buy guns it does not mean that she and I are equal in force. I grew up hunting and competing in firearm competitions. I've been in fist fights and was involved in competitive contact sports like football and wrestling. I understand what the body goes through when it surges with adrenalin. I know how to react to the flight or fight response without freezing. I have accurately killed game after having been winded. I can do this because I have practiced doing it. I knew how difficult it is to keep your arm still and point straight, I also know how to breath as I squeeze the trigger and not jerk it. I instinctively know that the safety must be released before the gun will fire. And, for me, it's not just in theory, I've done it. So, pick an average person who has purchased a pistol and taken the perfunctory training and practiced a few times and in a life and death battle I like my chances. And it's not just accuracy. It's willingness and likelihood of using force when the time comes.

• Sociopaths and psychopaths are far more likely on average to use force than than those who suffer no pathology. Even if both are equally armed.
• A seasoned criminal is far more likely to use force even if he or she isn't sociopathic or psychopathic.

 

[Xulld]

Science is descriptive, not proscriptive. I think we agree really on everything so far.

I bring up the police officer is to point out that force is not always equitable even if evenly armed.

This illustrates that human beings respond to many things more than just ft/lbs of energy. I agree. Force is a lot of things. Often at a fundamental level many details are left unresolved.

 

[AlBell]

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?

For some of us I suppose a diet of cowboy westerns.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

When did Plummer v State go to the Supreme Court? And where do the words 'protected from prosecution' apppear?

Are you sure you aren't misunderstanding a different case? John Bad Elk maybe?

 

[arthwollipot]

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

Hmm. An interesting perspective, and an interesting social philosophy. I don't think I agree with the reason/force dichotomy, unless you broaden the definition of those two terms beyond what they normally accomplish. Think of a Christian pastor exhorting his congregation to donate to the church. Many do. Is he using reason to convince them? Arguably not. Is he using force? Again, arguably not.

I'll probably have to think about that for a while. And like RandFan, I find it hard not to come to the conclusion that since force equality is the goal, then either everyone must be armed, or no-one.

Food for thought indeed. Thanks for posting that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Hmm. An interesting perspective, and an interesting social philosophy. I don't think I agree with the reason/force dichotomy, unless you broaden the definition of those two terms beyond what they normally accomplish. Think of a Christian pastor exhorting his congregation to donate to the church. Many do. Is he using reason to convince them? Arguably not. Is he using force? Again, arguably not.

I think that the term "reason" is being applied broadly to mean, not strictly "logic", but widely "persuasion through nonviolent communication".

Perhaps "coercion vs. persuasion" would be a better dichotomy.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think that the term "reason" is being applied broadly to mean, not strictly "logic", but widely "persuasion through nonviolent communication".

Perhaps "coercion vs. persuasion" would be a better dichotomy.

Yeah, the pastor isn't really coercing either. For that matter, nonviolent coercion still breaks Xulld's dichotomy, doesn't it?

 

[Rufo]

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.

I know that's a priority to many gun-owners, as it should be. But unless you actually need the gun - and it appears that many don't - I don't think it's enough. At the very least, the fact that this is an issue would mean society has a right to require that people make sure their weapons can not be stolen, since the loss is not primarily to the person it's stolen from.

Obviously I'm not blaming legitimate, responsible gun-owners for other people stealing their guns, but I do blame them for bringing another gun into existence with a legitimacy it doesn't deserve once it moves to the hands of a violent person.

If the answer to Parsman's question about the Mexican drug war being supplied with arms through the U.S. gun culture is yes, this is even more of a pressing issue in America.

 

[Xulld]

When did Plummer v State go to the Supreme Court? And where do the words 'protected from prosecution' apppear?

Are you sure you aren't misunderstanding a different case? John Bad Elk maybe?

Yup, you are correct, I am misunderstanding/miss-cited.

I post these things super quick between work and I apologize for my sloppiness at times. Thanks for the correction.

Hmm. An interesting perspective, and an interesting social philosophy. I don't think I agree with the reason/force dichotomy, unless you broaden the definition of those two terms beyond what they normally accomplish. Think of a Christian pastor exhorting his congregation to donate to the church. Many do. Is he using reason to convince them? Arguably not. Is he using force? Again, arguably not.

I'll probably have to think about that for a while. And like RandFan, I find it hard not to come to the conclusion that since force equality is the goal, then either everyone must be armed, or no-one.

Food for thought indeed. Thanks for posting that.

I think it is best to keep it simple. It is easy to confuse the point by trying to make it deeper than it really is.

This is not some kind of fundamental principle of philosophy. It is a fundamental observation of human behavior in relation to getting something you want from someone who possesses it.

People have many ways to get what they want and not all of them are reasonable even thought they are also not physically violent. I understand that this causes confusion in regards to the words being used. Reason and force, but it really shouldn't.

No single word is perfect, at least not that I have seen, but the truth of the article is clear to see: once diplomacy ends, violence begins. Unless of course someone has modified their desires, ie gave up getting what they want.

I know that's a priority to many gun-owners, as it should be. But unless you actually need the gun - and it appears that many don't - I don't think it's enough. At the very least, the fact that this is an issue would mean society has a right to require that people make sure their weapons can not be stolen, since the loss is not primarily to the person it's stolen from.

Obviously I'm not blaming legitimate, responsible gun-owners for other people stealing their guns, but I do blame them for bringing another gun into existence with a legitimacy it doesn't deserve once it moves to the hands of a violent person.

If the answer to Parsman's question about the Mexican drug war being supplied with arms through the U.S. gun culture is yes, this is even more of a pressing issue in America.

You seem to be assuming that it is possible to remove guns from existence. The tech exists to make them on a home shop lathe (a very nice gun!), or even using nothing but parts from home depot, or under the kitchen sink(zip gun). As long as there is a demand, people who want weapons will get them from somewhere.

This is an example of the everyone else principle. If you outlaw guns, those who abide by law will be unarmed and those who do not will find a way.

The demand for weapons is as infinite as human avarice, and where there is a will there is a way.

Also you talk about needing a gun. This is an argument about the probability of need, what does it matter if 1 in 100,000 people are violently assaulted and killed if you are that person?

Basically no one needs it until you do, in which case its too late to worry about it.

I would also argue that there are far more dangerous things in society that only exist for our convenience and enjoyment which cause more suffering and death than guns. Many people enjoy shooting sports, myself included, and will never harm anyone with a gun and never have a gun stolen from them. Cars kill far more people every year through negligence than stolen guns.

There was a show done by the BBC that was going on about how guns are essentially the one tech that spurred on the industrial revolution. Cool show. The history of guns, and the role they have played in human society is a mixed bag, really on par with just about every other technology that has made such a difference.

It really is a Pandora's box, where gun control is the futile effort to fix a problem that exists with people, not technology.

 

[Resume]

I know that's a priority to many gun-owners, as it should be. But unless you actually need the gun - and it appears that many don't - I don't think it's enough.

See, who do I blame for the knife a guy used to hold to my throat and abduct me? I'm not sure where he procured the large deer-skinning utensil but he did inform me what he was going to do with it, and where he and his two henchmen were planning to dump my body.

Someone needed to be held responsible: the store that sold it; the person that let it fall into the wrong hands; someone . . . hey, maybe me for being in the wrong place at the wrong time looking like the wrong person.

How dare I be so irresponsible!

Who caused another knife to come into existence?

 

[GeeMack]

I know that's a priority to many gun-owners, as it should be. But unless you actually need the gun - and it appears that many don't - I don't think it's enough. At the very least, the fact that this is an issue would mean society has a right to require that people make sure their weapons can not be stolen, since the loss is not primarily to the person it's stolen from.

That's some irrational nonsense passed around among the anti-gun folks. If someone steals your money, buys a lathe with that money, makes a gun with the lathe, and uses the gun to kill a gas station clerk during a robbery, how much responsibility are you willing to take for that murder? Should you have locked up your money so it didn't get into the wrong hands?

During a home invasion someone gets stabbed with the pocket knife you had as a boy scout and lost in the woods, or with the fishing knife you misplaced along a river bank. How much responsibility do you take for that stabbing?

Do you keep your axe locked away, maybe put the handle, the head, and the wedge in separate locked boxes so it takes a concerted effort to unlock the boxes and assemble the parts when you want to legally and responsibly use that axe?

Your baseball bat? Your car? Your rake? How much responsibility do you take for the murder someone commits with a screwdriver that fell out of your tool pouch somewhere along the bike riding trail? You didn't need that screwdriver. You didn't even need the bicycle. How much responsibility should the sales clerk at Sears take for selling you the screwdriver without a proper lock to keep it out of the hands of criminals? How much responsibility should the Craftsman company take for manufacturing it?

 

[Giz]

Obviously I'm not blaming legitimate, responsible gun-owners for other people stealing their guns, but I do blame them for bringing another gun into existence with a legitimacy it doesn't deserve once it moves to the hands of a violent person.

I worry about someone taking my car and taking a drunken joy-ride in it, possibly killing someone.

I don't really need a car; I could walk to work and cut back on seeing friends.

Perhaps I should just get rid of my car in case some crackhead breaks into it and takes off with it. It seems like the responsible thing to do.

 

[Rufo]

You seem to be assuming that it is possible to remove guns from existence. The tech exists to make them on a home shop lathe (a very nice gun!), or even using nothing but parts from home depot, or under the kitchen sink(zip gun). As long as there is a demand, people who want weapons will get them from somewhere.

I'm not quite so naïve. I don't think that guns can be removed from existence, I just want a person intent on hurting someone to have as difficult a time as possible to find a good tool for the job.

This is an example of the everyone else principle. If you outlaw guns, those who abide by law will be unarmed and those who do not will find a way.

The demand for weapons is as infinite as human avarice, and where there is a will there is a way.

Certainly, they will find ways, but some ways are substantially easier and more efficient. Finding a firearm is one.

Also you talk about needing a gun. This is an argument about the probability of need, what does it matter if 1 in 100,000 people are violently assaulted and killed if you are that person?

Basically no one needs it until you do, in which case its too late to worry about it.

I acknowledge that the word 'need' is vague. To be honest, I wasn't thinking about personal protection, but whether or not it's a good idea to keep a gun to protect yourself is a long discussion essentially separate from the argument I'm making (although relevant to the thread) that I think other people have more to say about.

For the sake of the argument, let's say I'm only questioning the people who keep firearms solely for shooting for fun.

I would also argue that there are far more dangerous things in society that only exist for our convenience and enjoyment which cause more suffering and death than guns.

I would like some relevant examples.

Many people enjoy shooting sports, myself included, and will never harm anyone with a gun and never have a gun stolen from them. Cars kill far more people every year through negligence than stolen guns.

I don't think many people use cars only for fun, nor do I think guns are nearly as useful to most people as cars. Also, driving a car isn't a right everyone should have unconditionally; you need to prove you are able to drive it and have an understanding of what risks are involved.

There was a show done by the BBC that was going on about how guns are essentially the one tech that spurred on the industrial revolution. Cool show. The history of guns, and the role they have played in human society is a mixed bag, really on par with just about every other technology that has made such a difference.

The relationship between weapons and technological progress is definitely interesting and, I think, problematic.

It really is a Pandora's box, where gun control is the futile effort to fix a problem that exists with people, not technology.

The fundamental problem is definitely with people. I don't see why that problem can't be migitated by restricting access to technology. We do restrict many technologies to prevent people from misusing them.

See, who do I blame for the knife a guy used to hold to my throat and abduct me? I'm not sure where he procured the large deer-skinning utensil but he did inform me what he was going to do with it, and where he and his two henchmen were planning to dump my body.

Someone needed to be held responsible: the store that sold it; the person that let it fall into the wrong hands; someone . . . hey, maybe me for being in the wrong place at the wrong time looking like the wrong person.

How dare I be so irresponsible!

Who caused another knife to come into existence?

I stated explicitly that I don't blame you for the actions of anyone else, so you already know this is not proper satire. A violent person is responsible for their violent actions. I'm trying to find ways to prevent them from doing damage. So if you are concerned about your safety, we have the same goal.

Knives are not similar to guns, because they are far more diversive tools. They are not solely weapons, nor are they as efficient as weapons.

Most of that also goes for cars, pocket knives, axes, rakes, screwdrivers, baseball bats and a number of other items which are not guns.

 

[Xulld]

migitated by restricting access to technology.

Prohibition has never proved successful. Do you have any evidence that a government is able to effectively limit access to small easily concealable black market items?

I believe the reality is that gun laws are paper protection which only strips LAC (law abiding citizens) of guns.

This topic is specifically about open carry, which is primary for self defense, so I really dont know how to respond to the rest of your post in context.

I have not really seen an argument, so I will wait for one. If (I am assuming) your argument is that making guns harder to get via laws is going to reduce the number of guns a criminal has available on street I do not think the statistics show this is true. Feel free to try, I am happy to look it over.

For the sake of the argument, let's say I'm only questioning the people who keep firearms solely for shooting for fun.

So what is your question? Also why would the reason for the firearm matter?

 

[RandFan]

Prohibition has never proved successful. Do you have any evidence that a government is able to effectively limit access to small easily concealable black market items?

I believe the reality is that gun laws are paper protection which only strips LAC (law abiding citizens) of guns.

This topic is specifically about open carry, which is primary for self defense, so I really dont know how to respond to the rest of your post in context.

I have not really seen an argument, so I will wait for one. If (I am assuming) your argument is that making guns harder to get via laws is going to reduce the number of guns a criminal has available on street I do not think the statistics show this is true. Feel free to try, I am happy to look it over.

Agreed. Now if the anti-drug people could catch up. But I digress.

I find the passion on both sides somewhat quixotic though. I think both irrational. Still, if you are going to be irrationally passionate then perhaps to be on the side of freedom is a bit less irrational.

 

[Rufo]

Prohibition has never proved successful. Do you have any evidence that a government is able to effectively limit access to small easily concealable black market items?

I believe the reality is that gun laws are paper protection which only strips LAC (law abiding citizens) of guns.

This topic is specifically about open carry, which is primary for self defense, so I really dont know how to respond to the rest of your post in context.

I have not really seen an argument, so I will wait for one. If (I am assuming) your argument is that making guns harder to get via laws is going to reduce the number of guns a criminal has available on street I do not think the statistics show this is true. Feel free to try, I am happy to look it over.

You make a fair point about the topic. I was curious about Parsman's question regarding the drug war in Mexico being fought with weapons originally from the U.S., but with this being about open carry rather than gun legislation overall, this discussion might be a bit of a tangent.

I'll research the issue.

[...]
I find the passion on both sides somewhat quixotic though. I think both irrational. Still, if you are going to be irrationally passionate then perhaps to be on the side of freedom is a bit less irrational.

Given the conflicting statistics, there's certainly an element of irrationality in the debate overall, which I think is to be expected when there aren't really enough facts to go on.

 

[Resume]

I stated explicitly that I don't blame you for the actions of anyone else, so you already know this is not proper satire. A violent person is responsible for their violent actions. I'm trying to find ways to prevent them from doing damage. So if you are concerned about your safety, we have the same goal.

Knives are not similar to guns, because they are far more diversive tools. They are not solely weapons, nor are they as efficient as weapons.

Most of that also goes for cars, pocket knives, axes, rakes, screwdrivers, baseball bats and a number of other items which are not guns.

I wasn't being satirical. I was relating an experience, perhaps archly, but an experience nevertheless.

 

[Rufo]

I wasn't being satirical. I was relating an experience, perhaps archly, but an experience nevertheless.

I referred to satirizing the assignment of blame, not the experience itself. Since it was real, it's all the more important that I'm not trying to relieve the people who did it of any responsibility.

If your point was that you need a gun to defend yourself against this type of attack, that's not really something I can respond to on an individual basis knowing next to nothing about your situation. I don't believe in a society of armed citizens as a method for preventing violence, but as previously stated, my issue is not so much with those citizens themselves as with the other possible consequences of an armed culture.

 

[GeeMack]

I referred to satirizing the assignment of blame, not the experience itself. Since it was real, it's all the more important that I'm not trying to relieve the people who did it of any responsibility.

If your point was that you need a gun to defend yourself against this type of attack, that's not really something I respond to on an individual basis knowing next to nothing about your situation.

I'm reasonably sure you'd agree that your personal assessment of anyone's need is irrelevant.

I don't believe in a society of armed citizens as a method for preventing violence, but as previously stated, my issue is not so much with those citizens themselves as with the other possible consequences of an armed culture.

Yet here you place the blame "with those citizens themselves"...

Obviously I'm not blaming legitimate, responsible gun-owners for other people stealing their guns, but I do blame them for bringing another gun into existence with a legitimacy it doesn't deserve once it moves to the hands of a violent person.

And you haven't been able to articulate why gun ownership by law abiding citizens doesn't deserve legitimacy. What you perceive as other people's needs seems pretty arbitrary. Maybe you're not making yourself clear, but it really does sound like you're advocating restricting access by the good guys based on the potential behavior of the bad guys.

For the sake of the argument, let's say I'm only questioning the people who keep firearms solely for shooting for fun.

So what is your question? Also why would the reason for the firearm matter?

I'm curious about this, too. Should people who keep firearms solely for shooting for fun be restricted differently than people who keep firearms as protection against risks to their lives, homes, and property? Should we be required to provide a reason for wanting a gun before being allowed to have one?