Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Should we all really be open carrying?

johndoesmith08
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 1:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I wanted to open a discussion based on some interactions and conflicts I recently have had with gun rights and advocates of open carrying. My first dilemma started while watching the police in Boston chase the two bomber brothers live on TV and following the online feeds. What I saw was a lot of hectic wild chasing and unorganized pursuing that could have been very dangerous. Let me explain, in this case in Boston, many people were brought down and approached by police because of their resemblance to the brothers or for any suspicious attention they may have drawn from police in the area of the pursuit. The pursuit then entered the neighborhood and resulted in the shoot out where the brothers through smoke bombs/improved explosives as well as releasing large amounts of fire. At the time what occurred to me was, that if there had been civilians open carrying in the area, who potentially wanted to protect themselves or who were armed and started pointing or firing on the brothers, the police would have most definitely targeted them in the crossfire as they would see a weapon and fire and assume it would be the bad guy and fire back wounding or killing the civilian.

I remember back when the kid brought a gun to a mall near my hometown and shot up Von Maur or when the cops in California fired on the truck with the grandma as they thought it was the alleged cop killer. If extreme gun rights advocates got more of their way and many people walked around with weapons on their belts or shoulders, in the terrible cases like Boston, the mall shooting etc. where the criminals are firing at civilians and police, how would police be able to identify the bad guy if there is firing going on in from multiple people and in different locations and from every direction: From civilians at different positions surrounding the criminal as well as the criminals. It just takes me back to outside the apartment in Boston, if people in the apartments were armed and firing to protect themselves, in the chaos of the moment with the smoke and blasts, there would be massive civilian causalities as police wouldn't be able to identify the criminals from civilians in all cases. I believe that we are more safe if we are unarmed in large circumstances as police will properly be able to identify and engage hostile targets without having to worry about civilian influences and casualties. To me, it seems as if in common places, it would be better for only a few armed people to be present, who could still address situations from the start before police arrive, but not too many where identifying targets would be difficult once law enforcement presence arrives.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 3:48:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 1:57:08 AM, johndoesmith08 wrote:
So I wanted to open a discussion based on some interactions and conflicts I recently have had with gun rights and advocates of open carrying. My first dilemma started while watching the police in Boston chase the two bomber brothers live on TV and following the online feeds. What I saw was a lot of hectic wild chasing and unorganized pursuing that could have been very dangerous. Let me explain, in this case in Boston, many people were brought down and approached by police because of their resemblance to the brothers or for any suspicious attention they may have drawn from police in the area of the pursuit. The pursuit then entered the neighborhood and resulted in the shoot out where the brothers through smoke bombs/improved explosives as well as releasing large amounts of fire. At the time what occurred to me was, that if there had been civilians open carrying in the area, who potentially wanted to protect themselves or who were armed and started pointing or firing on the brothers, the police would have most definitely targeted them in the crossfire as they would see a weapon and fire and assume it would be the bad guy and fire back wounding or killing the civilian.


I remember back when the kid brought a gun to a mall near my hometown and shot up Von Maur or when the cops in California fired on the truck with the grandma as they thought it was the alleged cop killer. If extreme gun rights advocates got more of their way and many people walked around with weapons on their belts or shoulders, in the terrible cases like Boston, the mall shooting etc. where the criminals are firing at civilians and police, how would police be able to identify the bad guy if there is firing going on in from multiple people and in different locations and from every direction: From civilians at different positions surrounding the criminal as well as the criminals. It just takes me back to outside the apartment in Boston, if people in the apartments were armed and firing to protect themselves, in the chaos of the moment with the smoke and blasts, there would be massive civilian causalities as police wouldn't be able to identify the criminals from civilians in all cases. I believe that we are more safe if we are unarmed in large circumstances as police will properly be able to identify and engage hostile targets without having to worry about civilian influences and casualties. To me, it seems as if in common places, it would be better for only a few armed people to be present, who could still address situations from the start before police arrive, but not too many where identifying targets would be difficult once law enforcement presence arrives.

The Boston bombing suspects became so by suspicious behavior and were identified before they were apprehended. Police didn't identify the bad guys by the ones who had guns. Even when the police found the suspects, they made every attempt to take them alive. The older brother only died because his brother ran him over.

People carry guns to protect themselves. What sense does it make to put yourself in danger to get a supposed bad guy and possibly get yourself shot? It doesn't. These thoughts you've had aren't thought out and don't even sound realistic. It is as if your drawing from experience of video games to predict what would occur if X and Y were to occur in the real world.

People who carry guns and police don't behave as you suggest so it doesn't logical follow that the world would turn into a video game.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 4:32:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you want, I will give you a degree of credit that not everyone should be carrying guns, That's a given. But those who are capable of doing so safely would naturally be safer and because being safer is good then it must also be good that they carry guns.