• Pro

  • Con

47% 21 votes
53% 24 votes
  • I think it's fine if they go walking around with heavy weapons strapped over their soldier while they go to the grocery store. Let em look like idiots. The novelty will wear off and most people will go with whats convenient. I'm certain their behavior in the small trial instances that have been given has doomed that option for them though. The same sort of backlash you get from anything you so suddenly legalize (im looking at you pot.) People get all giddy and stupid in the beginning.

  • There is no difference between open and concealed carry. As a matter of fact, I would argue that open carry is safer, as you can see the weapons themselves. It would in no way make shootings more likely.

    Posted by: TVGM12
  • I am 100% pro open carry, I just rarely do it anymore. Mostly because I got tired of being hassled by either ignorant people who are irrationally afraid of firearms, or the cops that people called on me. I only open carry when I am not wearing clothes conducive to conceal carry. Tajshar2k: to answer your question, I have never open carried a long gun at a kfc or wherever, but here is why people do. Simply because the AR-15 grabs attention. They are trying to bring attention to their cause while simultaneously desensitizing you from the successful media crusade to make people afraid of the sight of guns. Same reason that women protest topless, or gay people parade in streets wearing sexual outfits or crazy costumes. It is something that some see as offensive or vulgar or scary, but they flaunt it to make it more normalized. I guarantee you, once there is overwhelming support for open carry and people are no longer afraid of the sight of guns, they won't carry the long guns anymore. They will go back to just carrying their pistols, because honestly, its a pain in the ass to go about your day with a rifle on you. It's a political statement intended to bring attention and normalize something that we wish to keep as a right.

  • If I were going to rob or shoot up a public place, seeing a few bikers with assault rifles strapped to their backs would probably be enough to turn around, go home, and do some illegal drugs.

  • If everyone has guns then everyone has an equal opportunity at self defense.

  • concealed yes open no

    Posted by: Kylar
  • agreed with Kylar.

  • Kylar said it

  • Only CCW

  • lunacy

    Posted by: TBR
  • You really look a bit stupid walking around town with a SLR on your shoulder

  • I think you should be able wear a holster. But not to carry around a AR-15 on your shoulder through a train station.

  • I agree with Kylar. People get freaked out when they see someone carrying a gun around wal-mart, I don't see how that would be a good idea.

  • lol no. what are we in? some sort of dystopia? why do you have to show your guns and brag about it?

  • I can't see how this would prevent crime, but please tell me how

  • Only amongst loony conservatives is this acceptable. Of course, only when they do it.

  • Overall we should get rid of our weapons. On the police and the military should be allowed to carry weapons or even have them. Australia got rid of their weapons after school shootings and crime has gone to an all time low, something that Americans are to dumb to understand, that it will keep happening as long as civilians can get their hands on weapons.

  • Since people have started to practice open carry, the number of shootings have gone up in my area! I support gun ownership but this is ridiculous!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T14:53:41.3446959-05:00
People who voted yes, can you explain why it is a good idea to carry an Ar-15 when you go to KFC?
PetersSmith says2015-05-14T14:54:14.0739155-05:00
If people started openly carrying weapons I'd think we were in a war zone.
TBR says2015-05-14T14:54:15.5715347-05:00
I think carrying is nuts. Open gives me a shot at seeing the potential crazy's, but is not a sign of a healthy society.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T14:55:44.3847796-05:00
Over their shoulder*
lannan13 says2015-05-14T14:56:02.2180370-05:00
Open Carry mainly for small fire arms.
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T14:56:45.0994517-05:00
But why though? It makes sense for CCW, but open carry just lets a potential criminal know someone might attempt to stop them.
TBR says2015-05-14T14:57:50.6352176-05:00
@tajshar2k - They think it is a deterrence SEEING that other people are armed.
lannan13 says2015-05-14T14:59:02.0068069-05:00
If we look at it comparitively we can see that Open Carry has been a great deterance compared to an area a strict Gun Control. Take Chicago for instance, they boast they have the best Gun Control in America yet they have the country's highest crime rate.
TBR says2015-05-14T15:00:38.2600409-05:00
Lannan13 - You have a correlation / causation problem with Chicago.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T15:00:39.5181531-05:00
@TBR "Open gives me a shot at seeing the potential crazy's" My thoughts exactly. But do you want the visage of a healthy society, or an actual one. Forcing them to hide those types of things only makes things appear 'healthy'.
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T15:01:10.2745423-05:00
Thats actually incorrect. Chicago isn't even in the top 20 dangerous cities. Sources: I'm from Chicago :D
CyberConor says2015-05-14T15:02:48.7854689-05:00
Chicago has a higher murder rate than the enitre japan
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T15:05:49.7960349-05:00
"open carry just lets a potential criminal know someone might attempt to stop them." Thats a really good point. The gun toters hide and criminals come out. Gun toters come out and criminals hide. Either way someone is concealing their true intentions. I guess the question is which is better? Would it be better that a criminal thought second about performing a crime and would only commit one while others weren't around? I think from a numbers standpoint that puts less people in danger as the more there were in a particular area the safer they would be as bystanders. As for the lone person being robbed ... They have the chance to have a gun on them ... Which puts them at least on a more level playing field with the criminal. Not completely fair, but closer anyways.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T15:07:36.6262514-05:00
Stay in the sheep herd for safety, haha.
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T15:08:34.8071437-05:00
No, he would just plan and take you out so nobody will stop him. Or he would just wait for you to leave.
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T15:12:09.8949079-05:00
@cyberConor And, how many of those were gang-related?
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T15:26:21.7750293-05:00
@cyberConor also, Japan has gun control.
TBR says2015-05-14T15:28:43.0929353-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I would like some sanity. People carrying around guns thinking that any second they will be attacked by crazed thugs is an illusion. Like tajshar2k, I have grown up around Chicago, and am back in the area now. It just is NOT some wild west show. You do NOT need to be packing heat every second of the day,
TheHappyReaper says2015-05-14T16:34:20.9621259-05:00
If people started hiding weapons, then we would be at war. People carrying weapons are just gun nerds.
TheHappyReaper says2015-05-14T16:35:28.1989879-05:00
If I am hiding a sniper rifle in my walking cane, is it any less dangerous than me carrying over my shoulder?
Kreakin says2015-05-14T16:36:29.1113069-05:00
No, but you don't look like a loon.
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T16:40:25.3671977-05:00
@TheHappyReaper Can you tell me why on earth you would be carrying a sniper rifle?
TheHappyReaper says2015-05-14T16:49:09.9146202-05:00
Dunno, I don't like guns
TheHappyReaper says2015-05-14T16:50:09.2177412-05:00
I'm sure there is someone in the 7 billion people who live on this planet who would though
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T18:09:40.6643723-05:00
"If I am hiding a sniper rifle in my walking cane, is it any less dangerous than me carrying over my shoulder?'' It would in fact for a couple reasons. One, someone handling it like a cane would mistakenly be handling a gun improperly. Accidents are more likely when things like that happen. Two, you are more likely to be able to carry something like that into an area where it should not be, say on a plane or in closer proximity to a person with some status. I actually don't see why concealed carry comes before open carry. It is sort of backwards safety wise. Concealed seems the more civilized way to go though, to be sure.
TBR says2015-05-14T18:14:52.0501588-05:00
"Concealed seems the more civilized way to go though, to be sure." - while I agree, that sentence makes me shake my head.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-14T19:18:12.2090481-05:00
I just don't understand why you would do open carry instead of Conceal carry. If there is a somebody planning of committing a crime, they would know to shoot you first if it is open carry. Conceal carry is only the logical choice.
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T20:02:43.5245692-05:00
@mathgeekjoe Finally, something we agree on.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:07:20.6771663-05:00
Well certainly you want the element of surprise. In a measure of danger as a whole though, the element of surprise has always been considered a weapon in and of itself. It most certainly adds more danger to the whole gun scenario. It makes someone both a more effective defender and more effective potential killer.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:12:22.0766078-05:00
Maybe I could propose a hybrid solution. Open carry only on private property or by people of authority for a given property (i.E. Store owners, police, home owners on their own property, workers under the responsible watch of an employer, etc.). Store owners should also be able to dictate who gets to open carry on their premises. If they want to discriminate and post signs that forbid carriers from entering or receiving services, that should be reserved for them. Much of this is already in place for certain professions ... I just think it should be extended to a persons private property.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:15:09.8063807-05:00
Everywhere outside of that would be concealed with permit. Open carry for special cases with a much more stringent permit (again authorities or for special cases like evacuation or something).
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T20:18:05.6674353-05:00
Oh well ya, I don't care if you carry your AR-15 in your backyard. I used to shoot tin cans in my yard.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:28:27.4914073-05:00
As it stands now though, in most suburban areas, neighbors would have a fit if they saw you with your gun next door ... Even in through your front window with one in the living room or something. They can't be visible in your cars in most states etc. You should be free to do as you wish on your property. Firing it and noise violations though, different story.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-14T20:29:40.6407451-05:00
Conceal weapons is far more effective at deterring crime. Lets say you are in a state with a high amount of people with conceal carry. If you plan to commit a crime, you have no idea who also has a gun, while you are able to conceal your gun as well, it doesn't help you if get shot by someone else you didn't think had a gun. Now lets run the same situation just with only open carry. While everybody knows you have a gun, nobody knows of your intentions to use it. The down side to everyone else is that you know who also has a gun. You know when there is no one around has a gun, you know when everyone has a gun, you also know who to shoot if you want to take out a threat.
TBR says2015-05-14T20:36:02.3464387-05:00
To my gun loving friends, doesn't this all just sound just the slightest bit nuts to you? I am asking honestly. Toting around a gun, discussions of tactics in suburban area. What holsters are best to be concealed best? None of this seems over the top to you? I am 43 now. I have NEVER needed a gun. Not once. I have lived in Chicago, Denver, Santa Barbara CA, Madison WI and a number of places between. Not once have I ever thought to myself, "sure wish I had a gun".
tajshar2k says2015-05-14T20:41:35.9723159-05:00
I thought you were 45.
TBR says2015-05-14T20:42:13.4213604-05:00
I think I may be 44.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:48:48.0822557-05:00
@TBR How awesome is that? I mean really. I have to say though that I'm a bit biased in the matter due to having some outside-of-US experience. Had I lived my entire life in the bubble here, I may have shared your outlook. I blame the military for my condition. I don't see guns as a total negative, but rather a way to prevent living in the 3rd world areas I've seen. It might make this place seem slightly less civilized to you, but miles more civilized to me, when I compare it to what I fear we would have without them. Seeing the glass as half empty ... I suppose.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T21:02:26.6515019-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Perhaps. Size and visibility is definitely a factor too though. I wonder if they have a study out about this. Or maybe about police in general. Cops roaming in full riot gear, in black, etc. seem generally more threatening than the thought that an undercover agent with a pistol could be lurking around somewhere. Command presence is definitely something to consider. I guess it depends on your objective. That's why I think its safe to say most open carriers believe visible guns help more to deter crime in general, and concealed carriers emphasize more the personal safety factor.
TBR says2015-05-14T23:09:21.1292397-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Well, your AREN'T living in the third world (now I guess) so why the need for a gun? I think a good deal of this gun desire is misplaced fear. Rather than attempt to change any laws, I would rather just change peoples mind about needing a gun.
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T07:41:45.5187729-05:00
I still believe we should be allowed to carry handguns however. Even if we need them, criminals aren't going to say the same thing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T08:07:17.5613326-05:00
Oh the 3rd world status wasn't what made me want the gun. People can live in poverty just fine. It was the reality that anyone could come along at anytime and take everything from you in an instant, because they had a gun and you didn't, that was the real fear there. That is a possibility anywhere. Even here in a modern country. Despite what laws we have set in place, it only takes 1 person with the will to break them to come along and steal everything I own and everyone I care about right out from in front of me. That happens everywhere, 3rd world and here. It just was much more visible there is all. Here you rarely see or hear about it unless it makes the news.
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T08:09:27.4794015-05:00
If Gun control was placed 100 years ago, we wouldn't have this problem.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T08:53:22.6343818-05:00
The states back around our founding weren't so uncivilized a place ... And they still saw a need for it. "Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid Step out of line, the men come and take you away" If guns don't remove that fear ... I don't know what else does.
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T08:55:46.4058250-05:00
Reasoning, talking it out, that stuff works too you know...
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T09:03:09.9663116-05:00
Sometimes. Sometimes you don't get that opportunity. How often have you come to a complete resolution on this site? Talking it out does not always work ... No. Sometimes you just have to lay your chips out there and call people out, otherwise theyll sit there and bleed you dry slowly (with compromise).
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T09:05:06.4374048-05:00
Well, I would first attempt to talk it out, if that doesn't work, that I take out the guns. The problem is, people in this country do it the opposite way. Shoot first, ask questions later.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T09:06:14.8808063-05:00
Where is that the case? We are talking right now and the shooting hasn't even started yet.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T09:08:28.6939978-05:00
Even the founders attempted talks before they overthrew their oppressors. The entire declaration of independence is a list of unresolved grievances and attempts to talk the king down. Then guns became necessary. As far as having them on hand ... You just don't want to wait till the bear is on top of you before loading your gun.
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T09:10:38.4876618-05:00
I was referring to Modern day America. A very good example would be cops.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T09:11:16.9109544-05:00
Honestly I think we are alot more bark and no bite in this country. Everyones got an opinion about everything and no ones willing to fight for it. Theyll say they value human rights etc. and then sit back and watch a country be oppressed because they hate Bush and don't have the stomach to back up their words.
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T09:13:47.1250116-05:00
Some people believe in non violent protests (MLK) . It is wrong to criticize them for taking those measures.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T11:47:47.6000957-05:00
I don't think so. I think if it's something truly of value you should be willing to take all measures, not just the passive aggressive ones. In times where non violent protest has not worked, I do not feel bad for the protesters when they give up at the point where war was necessary. It makes them non-deserving. It actually shows how little they actually cared about a particular issue in the first place. Taking the fight only half way and then backing down when its time to get physical and put your money where your mouth is ... It's sort of trollish. Just running around provoking people and not following through ...
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T11:49:17.5976055-05:00
MLK's just happened to work ... So he gets to be made an exception.
Krampus says2015-05-15T14:01:59.8689792-05:00
TBR: I live in Atlanta, GA, and I have needed a gun, twice to be exact. Just because you have been lucky enough to never have needed one, doesn't mean no one else has. Also, If you were ever in a situation where you thought "I sure wish I had a gun", you most likely would be dead and not able to type on this thread. If you are that the point where you realize you need one, if you don't have one it's too late.
TBR says2015-05-15T14:02:53.0066408-05:00
@Krampus - Can you, would you describe the situation?
Krampus says2015-05-15T14:19:21.9935396-05:00
TBR: Sure, I have needed a gun twice. Once, my fiance and I were walking on a nature trail near my house to cut through to get to a friends house (full disclosure, I do live in a bad neighborhood, that's why I carry), and two (probably 15 year old) boys came out of the woods with knives and told me to get on the ground. I pulled out my pistol and yelled at them to not come any closer, they ran, no shots fired. Second time, I was dove hunting with my dad. We were walking through the woods to get to a particular field that my dad's friend kept prepped for doves. We stumbled across a boar (probably around 400-450 lbs). They are, as you might know, very aggressive. We yelled and shot into the ground to scare it. It freaked and charged at us, I shot it with a my shotgun.
tajshar2k says2015-05-15T21:17:27.3061806-05:00
@Krampus But, don't you think it does more harm than good? Firstly, it creates fear among many people, and such thing isn't healthy for a developed country like America. Secondly, it isn't effective in stopping crime. If criminals know you are carrying a rifle, they simply will wait for you to leave, or they will plan to take you out first. The advantage is in their favor. You also say they try to bring attention to their cause, but what cause? If they are exercising their right to bear arms, then CCW would serve the same purpose. In my opinion, open carry is just too much, and it feels people only do it to show off.
Trig314 says2015-05-16T21:02:28.0640654-05:00
I believe people have the "right" to open carry. I don't think it's smart both tactically and politically. Anti-gun organization such as Mom's Demand Action use photos of open carriers to push their agenda. We can cut away their power if we all concealed carry. And tactically, you are better off surviving if you conceal carry if someone threatens your life.
Trig314 says2015-05-16T21:14:47.3474264-05:00
@TBR I appreciate the fact that you would rather convince people not to carry rather than change laws forcing people not to carry. Not too many people who don't like guns are like that. You're one of those rare people that tried to convince people not to carry, but in the end, you do support their right to choose which is what most American citizens want in general. And as for why do I need to carry a gun? Well think of it like this. Why do I not need to carry a gun. What are the cons to carrying a firearm? Unless you have a cheap holster, conceal carrying is actually pretty comfortable(if you get the right holster). And if you are not suffering from discomfort, then why not carry? Isn't it better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it?
Krampus says2015-05-18T11:21:56.0655164-05:00
Tajshar2k, I will try to respond to your points as concise as possible to avoid a novel: 1." But, don't you think it does more harm than good?", no, people open carrying are not harming anyone. "Firstly, it creates fear among many people, and such thing isn't healthy for a developed country like America.", The fear is irrational, which is why they want to bring your attention to it, to normalize it. You don't freak out when you see a cop carrying a gun. They are just people. Some are bad, but overwhelmingly most are good. I grew up in Alabama and it was normal to go to the bank or wherever and see people carrying and no one would freak out or become afraid because it's normal and you see them all the time. "Secondly, it isn't effective in stopping crime. If criminals know you are carrying a rifle, they simply will wait for you to leave, or they will plan to take you out first. The advantage is in their favor." Yes, when you open carry you sacrifice the element of surprise for draw speed/comfort; however, you are looking at a specific scenario where the the criminal only has the advantage because he sees the one guy with a gun. Consider the opposite: A potential killer walks into a mall and sees that EVERYONE is carrying a gun on their hip. He couldn't go for everyone first or wait for everyone to leave, so he most likely wouldn't even try. If a shooter can see that he is obviously outnumbered by other people with guns, he is less likely to even start shooting, as opposed to him assuming no one has a gun since those same people are conceal carrying. In short, if everyone is concealing, then when a shooting starts, someone can stop him with minimal lives lost. If a room is full of open carriers, the shooting most likely won't even take place, losing zero lives. I have yet to hear of a shooting at a place where even 1/4th of the people there were open carrying. "You also say they try to bring attention to their cause, but what cause? If they are exercising their right to bear arms, then CCW would serve the same purpose. In my opinion, open carry is just too much, and it feels people only do it to show off." This goes along with what I said earlier about normalizing. Depending on where you live, you most likely interact with or pass by many people all day long who have a gun concealed and you don't know it. That person concealing isn't bringing any attention to their cause unless they open a dialogue with you. I actually very rarely tell people that I am carrying because I don't feel like arguing. The fact that they have a gun isn't a threat to to, whether it is on the outside of their clothes or the inside. It's the person. They open carry so you WILL see the weapon. This forces a dialogue while simultaneously desensitizing you to the sight of a firearm. The media has very successfully taught many Americans that whenever you see a gun it is either in the hands of a cop, or the hands of a criminal, so when you see an average Joe with one, people have been programmed to become afraid of the gun itself. They want to undo that and teach you that it's the people that matter, not the gun, and that most people are good people and guns don't equal crime, they are actually the best preventative.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:48:07.9266574-05:00
I agree with you about the criminal deterrent. Having everyone around with open arms would discourage crime in any populated place (save for maybe the school shooter type pshycos who go in with the intent to die). It's entirely possible that all other petty crime would go the way of the dodo. I think its funny that the "terrorizing other nearby people" aspect doesn't have more weight with some of you, especially since people would have argued against me on the whole bullying/hate speech not being protected speech thing. How is walking around with a gun visible not a form of threat to others.
Krampus says2015-05-18T13:12:06.8480528-05:00
The mere presence of a gun is not a threat (directly or indirectly) towards any rational person. Most people in gun friendly states (I've never lived in a non-gun friendly state) don't ever Same as when you see a cop with a gun, you don't immediately jump to the conclusion that he is trying to shoot you. People who open carry are trying to teach people what their rights are and desensitize people's irrational fear of them. Directly threatening someone is a threat to someone's safety. I feel that's pretty self-explanatory. It's a direct threat to their right to life. In short, open carry is legal/protected because it doesn't step on anyone's rights, it only let's you exercise yours. Freedom of speech,religion, expressession, etc. is legal/protected because it doesn't step on anyone's rights, it only lets you exercise yours. Directly threatening someone is not legal/protected under the first amendment because you ARE stepping on someone's right to life. So they are not the same thing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T13:29:02.3654987-05:00
"The mere presence of a gun is not a threat (directly or indirectly) towards any rational person.", "Directly threatening someone is a threat to someone's safety." I think though to a rational person, mere verbal threats are nothing without a physical action to back them up. I think that what you mentioned before, about being overly sensitized to a specific thing has caused people to look at speech irrationally. In much the way one would associate a gun with physical violence, I think they have presumed these vibrations in the air to be associated with physical violence. Some might use a gun to kill, another might use a gun for sport, some might wear/expose it to help threaten. Some might use speech for any of those things also. Is that cause then to ban its use entirely from people. Even the good ones? You cant differentiate between those that wear it as a symbol to threaten vs the ones just wearing it for defense. Its the same for those who criticize to criticize and those who criticize with malicious intent.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T13:32:16.7002156-05:00
Equally you can't know their true intent until the damage is already done. Banning guns from even being possessed is similar in many ways to banning curse words from our vocabulary.
Krampus says2015-05-19T07:47:09.3515314-05:00
"Equally you can't know their true intent until the damage is already done. Banning guns from even being possessed is similar in many ways to banning curse words from our vocabulary". I agree with the second part. Banning guns before people use them irresponsibly is the same as putting a ball gag on someone before they have abused the first amendment. I disagree with the first part though. There is a difference in threats and freedom of speech. You can know someone's true intent to hurt you before they actually hurt you. Any reasonable person can make this distinction, and if they can't then it is decided in court. Imagine if someone is obviously angry, screaming specifically at you, making violent gestures specifically at you, threatening to beat you up, and then charging at you. Or if you were arguing with someone on this site, who got angry, figured out your address, posted it, and threatened that they are heading to your house now to hurt you. No damage has already been done to you, but any REASONABLE person would believe that their life/health/well-being was threatened. Since those threats are infringing on people's right to life, they are not protected by the first amendment. Open carry is protected by 2nd amendment and is not a threat to any REASONABLE person, so its apples and oranges. There will always be situations that are grey areas on whether someone was justified in using self defense. That is what the court is for. They determine what a reasonable person think/do in those situations and decide who acted reasonably and who didn't. That is also why the jury is "of your peers", and why we have the 7th amendment.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T09:23:10.3503619-05:00
Well what about a gun being a perceived force multiplier. You could make a normal comment without a gun in your possession that could be passed off as a non issue. If that same person was toting a firearm openly ... Some normally harmless things begin to sound more threatening. If you couple open carry with restrictive speech it could be a bad mix.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T09:27:35.9117730-05:00
That also proves the point that there is a reasonable threat factor related to open carry vs. Concealed. If it was just a gun, you could argue it's unreasonable to fear it. It's not just guns we are talking about though ... Its humans interacting in the same manner they already do, now with a gun. They are exponentially more capable of projecting their thoughts, emotions, and criticisms on people when they have the physical means right there to act on what they're saying.
Krampus says2015-05-19T09:33:06.5150544-05:00
Can you give an example of one of those "normal comments" that you think would be interpreted differently depending on whether or not that person is open carrying? Regardless of the comment though, this is where the REASONABLE person factors in. If a reasonable person or the jury decides that a reasonable person is justified in believing that their rights are threatened by the person with a gun, then that person would be charged with brandishing or assault, depending on the situation. If a reasonable person or the jury decides that a reasonable person is NOT justified in believing that their rights are threatened, then the case is dismissed. I won't address the restrictive speech because I already talked about it earlier in this thread.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T10:02:49.6194001-05:00
Well yeah ... Assume the restricted speech precedent has been set already. Guns further push that "reasonable" level toward people feeling threatened. People commenting here on this thread have said they would feel threatened just by your presence in a particular place where they think a gun is not needed. If enough of them are sitting on that jury of yours ... Youre f'ed i suppose. But thats what we get for setting that precedent earlier on speech.
Krampus says2015-05-19T10:14:50.0571067-05:00
Yeah, I would say to those people that are threatened by the mere presence of a gun that they are unreasonable people. I'd imagine that they don't feel threatened when a cop is nearby with a gun, so the gun itself is not the problem. They just don't want normal citizens with them. It's not a justifiable viewpoint that is reasonable. If your angle is that police are trained, I would tell you that virtually everyone who owns a gun and carries it are pretty proficient with them. Most people practice, and are very often better shots than police, particularly avid hunters. I'm a good shot, but I know 8 year olds that live in the sticks that could out shoot me anyday with either a rifle or a pistol. I digress. Most reasonable people are not afraid by the mere presence of a gun, at least in gun friendly states. I grew up in Alabama and currently live in Georgia, and have open carried many times. It's not uncommon to be out running errands and see someone in line at the bank/grocery store/wherever and see someone carrying. For the most part, no one even notices or cares. Every now and then you go somewhere and there is some liberal yahoo who wants to flip their top about it and calls the cops on you, but that person isn't reasonable and has no justification to feel threatened. They get even more upset when the cops come, see that nothing sketchy is going on and just leave after just talking to you without even ID'ing you or arresting you. In my experience, I have yet to meet a cop who is anti-gun because they understand that they prevent crime more effectively than the cops can. I have spoken to them many times, many of those times I was armed, and a lot of those times, they were there because someone called them on me.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T10:33:43.1378099-05:00
But who doesn't see varying levels of arms as a threat. Even with everyone having a pistol ... If the police are rolling around in MRAPs there's a threatening presence there ... The idea that you could not protect yourself from them even though you're carrying. What about peoples small arms? The guy that can afford a belt fed SAW versus a person who can only afford a $200 off brand defense carry pistol that jams all the time. Again, the idea that you would not stand a chance if this guy decided to go on a shooting spree. That disparity puts a person at a disadvantage and has them feeling threatened.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T10:36:38.1808696-05:00
I think of command presence as an effective tool as much as any police force does (and military force). You can't dismiss it in the public application of these things either. It's a reasonable response. It's a natural response.
Krampus says2015-05-19T11:54:19.7718341-05:00
As I stated before, each situation is different and it is up to you as the person experiencing the alleged threat to reasonably decide how to respond to the situation. If you act in a way in which someone disagrees with you, you may end up in court, where the jury decides what a reasonable person would have done.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T12:42:29.4038520-05:00
I know, i get that, but im telling you that those same people who find that logic of yours 'reasonable' (logic of putting people away for threats) are the exact same ones who find it logical to keep guns out of the public eye. I don't know how you can stand as one of them on one topic then be angry that you're not getting your way on this one. Its obvious why they would not want guns openly carried. It's for the very same logic that they don't want open speech either. Last example, I promise. Iran. Why is it we can laugh off their hate for us any other day, but when it comes to having nukes we are so adamant about ensuring they don't get them? Sure they make verbal criticisms of our government and our beliefs. We haven't seen fit to punish them solely based on their threats before. Why when it comes to restricting their means to do harm, do things suddenly get serious? Because arms are involved. Because there is a much higher perceived threat there now if they get to tote nukes around. Because their crazy beliefs had little weight before, we could just continue on about our lives and ignore them. Its the same for if you had given every joe shmo out there the right to tote a gun around. Suddenly their beliefs about you carry alot more weight. It's something you'd begin to consider every moment before you did anything, that they could strike at you pretty easily if they wanted to. So you begin to adjust what you do, adjust your behavior, live in fear.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T12:47:16.3049201-05:00
I really was in an 'I don't care' state about open carry before. But if youre telling me that what we are doing about speech is ok, and that this is what we want in America, then I would have to side with banning open carry then on the grounds that you'd be threatening to people whether you knew it or not. As it stands now I think that is your right, to be threatening in appearance or in speech. But if youre telling me that we don't have that right ... Then we most certainly dont have the right to open carry arms in the presence of others.
Krampus says2015-05-19T13:06:34.0187834-05:00
My personal view, in life and in Iran, is that if someone tells me they want to kill me, I will believe them. It's stupid not to, because you would only have to be wrong once before you get killed. If I see someone with a gun, I'm not threatened. If someone says they want to kill me and then goes and gets a gun, then I would feel threatened. If a country has a nuke, I don't feel threatened, in fact many countries have nukes. I would have to double check, but I think right now at this point Russia has more nukes than we do. That doesn't bother me. With Iran, they have said they do want to kill us, along with Israel, and then are actively seeking a nuke, so Israel and the US should feel threatened. Do you see the difference? The mere presence of a gun/nuke on a person/in a country doesn't bother me, and shouldn't bother any reasonable person. No rights are being infringed, so it is protected by the 2nd amendment. Therefore it is legal. If a person or country acts in a threatening way directed at someone specific person, then proceeds to take means to initiate force towards them, then rights are infringed, so it is not protected by the first amendment, that's why it is illegal. The threat being specifically and directly aimed at someone is an important factor. For instance, the black panthers chanting "kill whitey!", would be protected under the first amendment because it is expression and not aimed at anyone in particular. If they acted on it, they would be charged, but until so. If they chanted "kill john smith at 123 main st!", then that is not protected under the 1st amendment and they could be charged regardless if they act or not (whether it would stick in court is another story).
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T13:50:22.1939420-05:00
" then proceeds to take means to initiate force towards them, then rights are infringed" Exactly. Physical action taken to initiate it is what is needed to infringe rights. Internet commentary shouldnt fall under infringing of anyones rights. Not reasonably anyways.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T13:55:59.6801978-05:00
With the "kill whitey thing" ... Irans aggression is not directed at anyone in particular in most cases. Burning our flag is an open statement to us all. I suppose that would be protected speech right? And we should not presume from that that they might be aggressive were they given a nuke? I mean, "death to America!" isn't directed at anyone in particular.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T13:58:40.6153091-05:00
This is all sounding very double standard to me. Protecting intra-national protesting and going to war over extra-national protesting.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T14:00:49.3756312-05:00
You see how fickle someone can be over who or what makes them feel threatened? I don't much like the idea of being a slave to the will of that type of individual.
Krampus says2015-05-19T14:14:46.0866755-05:00
Did you even read my post? I feel like I am repeating myself and you aren't hearing what I am saying. Violent statements are protected as long as they are not directed directly to someone. Internet speech is protected, people speak violently all the time on it. It's not until someone like that woman recently who said she wanted to go to a specific police station that she mentioned by name and kill at least 15 white cops that worked there that she was picked up and charged. If you can't see the difference between someone just expressing themselves and that person making a direct threat to the life/health/well-being of another person, then I can't help you. Plenty of groups can yell "kill whitey", and I don't feel threatened, and it is protected. But when they do start killing people, it is not. There is no double standard. You are trying to draw a perfect parallel between an individual person making a threat to a countries' governments making a threat to other countries. It is not a perfect parallel because they are two different things. In the case of an entire country threatening an entire country, each would be treated like an individual, but the constitution of the US only applies to the US. Would you consider a declaration of war a threat, even if the declarer hasn't bombed you yet? I have no issue with other countries having nukes, but if one countries government has openly stated they want to destroy Israel and death to america, and then makes advances towards a nuke, I do feel threatened. They are not the same thing. About the fickle comment, yes people can be fickle about what they are afraid of. That's because not everyone is reasonable. There is a legal standard for reasonable. I have said this like 15 times now. You can be fickle all you want, but its your responsibility to act reasonably, and if you act in a way that other perceive as unreasonable, then the jury decides what is reasonable.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T14:32:05.3474609-05:00
"Would you consider a declaration of war a threat, even if the declarer hasn't bombed you yet?" Not if they dont have a means to do it and they are a world away from me, no i would not take such a threat seriously. Declare whatever you wish. Having the gun (the means to do it) is what makes the difference. Your words, I could not care less about. "if you act in a way that other perceive as unreasonable, then the jury decides what is reasonable." The jury is perceiving open carry as unreasonable. Perhaps you should just continue to let them decide whats right for you then and kiss those guns of yours goodbye. I dont know why you keep falling back on the current way law is practiced as a standard. It's failing at upholding freedom of speech by leaning more towards some freedom to ones own personal reality and perception of the world around them (which is not stated in the constitution).
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T14:33:45.7665920-05:00
"Would you consider a declaration of war a threat, even if the declarer hasn't bombed you yet?" Not if they don't have a means to do it and they are a world away from me, no i would not take such a threat seriously. Declare whatever you wish. Having the gun (the means to do it) is what makes the difference. Your words, I could not care less about. "if you act in a way that other perceive as unreasonable, then the jury decides what is reasonable." The jury is perceiving open carry as unreasonable. Perhaps you should just continue to let them decide whats right for you then and kiss those guns of yours goodbye. I don't know why you keep falling back on the current way law is practiced as a standard. It's failing at upholding freedom of speech by leaning more towards some freedom to ones own personal reality and perception of the world around them (which is not stated in the constitution).
tajshar2k says2015-05-19T14:39:17.1949655-05:00
Krampus: Thank you for the reply, It seems you have taken your time in addressing what I said. I'll try to now to refute some of your arguments. You say that nobody freaks out when a cop carries a gun. You can't compare a cop to a gun owner, because automatically people will know that the cop is a good guy. A criminal and a gun owner don't look different. Which is why it causes alot of paranoia. 2nd, you say that if everybody open carried, the shooter will likely not attempt anything at all. Let's try to be a bit realistic, not everybody will want to carry guns, so you can't assume everybody will open carry. Even then, not all open carriers will be hanging out together. 3rd, you say that the media has taught people that people who carry guns are evil, and it makes no difference if you are a open carry owner, or a CCW. But, that isn't really the question. The question is why people have the need to open carry, when CCW would serve the same purpose? Sure, it doesn't really make a difference, they still have a gun, but it is completely unnecessary. Also, before you redirect me to your 2nd argument, I would like you to maybe give a link or something that shows open carry being effective. Also, one thing I forgot the mention is that open carry usually involves people carrying a semi-automatic rifle. I do not understand why they would need that, when a handgun is much for effective, and is more accurate. With semis, you risk hitting an unarmed civilian, because it requires more skill to control. (which is why even most cops use handguns instead.). I have heard of guys who open carry rocket launchers, and this link proves it http://cdn.Bearingarms.Com/uploads/2014/05/Open-Carry-Kansas.Jpg
Krampus says2015-05-20T08:46:47.0249312-05:00
Tajshar2k: ok allow be to list my rebuttal: "You can't compare a cop to a gun owner, because automatically people will know that the cop is a good guy. A criminal and a gun owner don't look different." First, I think a lot of people (especially in ferguson, baltimore, NY,etc) would disagree since many polls indicate that people are often more afraid of being killed by a cop than by another person. Also, most cops are gun owners, most gun owners are not criminals. Also, I believe common sense would say that if a criminal is walking around with an illegal gun or planned on using it in a crime, they wouldn't openly advertise that they had one and risk getting caught before they use it. It would be like a bank robber wearing a ski mask while waiting in line at the bank to rob it. "2nd, you say that if everybody open carried, the shooter will likely not attempt anything at all. Let's try to be a bit realistic, not everybody will want to carry guns, so you can't assume everybody will open carry. Even then, not all open carriers will be hanging out together." Of course I wouldn't expect 100% of the population to open carry, in fact I do believe that irresponsible people shouldn't have guns. This was an exaggeration to illustrate a point. In a world where either no one carried or everyone carried, less crime would happen in the place were everyone carried. "3rd, you say that the media has taught people that people who carry guns are evil, and it makes no difference if you are a open carry owner, or a CCW. But, that isn't really the question. The question is why people have the need to open carry, when CCW would serve the same purpose? Sure, it doesn't really make a difference, they still have a gun, but it is completely unnecessary." People open care for a few reasons. For instance, comfort (wearing a holster outside your belt is very often more comfortable that tucking it into your pants), accessibility (draw speed is significantly increased if it is out and more accessible), or even sometimes you can't conceal, like in the summer time if you have tight clothes that would show an imprint or not actually conceal it. As to why people NEED to open carry vs ccw? The best part about being a human in a country that allows you to exercise your rights is that you don't have to explain to anyone why you NEED to exercise that right. Why do gay people NEED to get married? Why did Rosa Parks NEED to sit in the front of the bus? Why do you NEED to be able to believe in your own religion? "Also, before you redirect me to your 2nd argument, I would like you to maybe give a link or something that shows open carry being effective." (http://www.Gunowners.Org/sk0802htm.Htm and http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?48510-Interviewing-Inmates-Do-you-avoid-armed-citizens are good ones.) It's difficult to find statistics that specifically single out open carry vs CCW, but ALL available research shows that criminals are most afraid of being shot/killed by their victims, more so then they are afraid of the police and or getting caught. If they see that victims are armed, they are less likely to victimize that person. Same works if they were to go into a public business and notice that many people are armed. They are there for quick, easy money more often than not and are not wanting to risk their life for it. Seeing the guns out in the open makes them realize the reality of consequence and they would most likely re-think their actions before they take them. Only in movies do they try and disarm an armed person. "Also, one thing I forgot the mention is that open carry usually involves people carrying a semi-automatic rifle. I do not understand why they would need that, when a handgun is much for effective, and is more accurate. With semis, you risk hitting an unarmed civilian, because it requires more skill to control. (which is why even most cops use handguns instead.). I have heard of guys who open carry rocket launchers, and this link proves it". Ok, Semi-automatic, just means that when you pull the trigger, one bullet comes out. This is no different that many deer rifles, and virtually all handguns short of things like a single action only revolver. FYI, Most cops carry a glock, which is semi-automatic. An AR-15 with 10 rounds in it and a glock handgun with 10 rounds in it would shoot just as many bullets as the other just as fast and would be virtually the same weapon if they were chambered with the same rounds. It actually requires more skill and control to hit something with a pistol than a rifle. Pistols are small, short barreled, and would even have more kick than a rifle that shoots the same round. A rifle would allow you to use your shoulder and both hands to control, while having a longer barrel and less kick, which makes them a lot easier to shoot along with increasing both accuracy and precision. All guns you risk hitting innocent bystanders, which is why police and citizens both are taught to try and aim for center body mass. In real life you don't get to take time to line up sights, it's more of a point and click situation. So you point towards the largest part of the person to mitigate penetration and likelyhood of missing (which is why the type of round you use is important, but i digress). Again it's only in movies where you can shoot the gun out of someones hand to disarm them or hit them in the knee to mame them. In real life, you would most likely miss and have a ricochet hit someone else if you tried to shoot them in the leg, whether it missed or penetrated through. As for the RPG, that link didn't work for me, but the only time I have ever heard of someone walking around the US with an rpg, it was a toy and he was doing it to test police response time. I assure you, if someone open carried an RPG into a business or whatever and then used it for criminal activity, it would be all over the news. Also, RPG's are not allowed even with current open carry laws. Most states even say that they only allow you to carry up to a .45 caliber chambered weapon.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-20T11:07:50.3944306-05:00
"The question is why people have the need to open carry, when CCW would serve the same purpose?" That is the big question, and the reason is because of the innate and passive response you get from showing the world the cards you're holding. That is the fear factor. The idea that no one will commit crime around you because they can see you are armed ... That same principle is what drives the "threatening image" thing we've been talking about that you Krampus denys should exist. But if it didn't exist ... The effectiveness of open carry over CCW disappears with it. They are one in the same. That effect of subliminal coercion because you are wearing an assault rifle is the same thing.
Krampus says2015-05-20T11:58:20.8735625-05:00
No one is obligated to explain to you why they NEED a right. I have covered this already in this thread. The whole "fear factor" that you are talking about is precisely the reason these open carry protesters are trying to get rid of. You have been taught your whole life by the media that guns are inherently dangerous, thus giving you an irrational, unreasonable fear that you are being threatened at the mere sight of one. Why not have cops conceal carry then, instead of open carrying? You seem to not be afraid when you see a cop with a gun. That's because a cop walking around with a gun is only a threat to you if you want to commit a crime. Same applies to citizens. A citizen is not a threat to you, unless you are wanting to commit a crime against them. The stereotype that liberals have where the only reason someone would have a gun is to commit mass shootings is what these people are trying to get rid of. They are promoting rational/reasonable thought and realistic worldviews in order to create a polite and crime free society. On a side note, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it's semi-automatic, just like almost all handguns used for open carry and ccw (including the service pistols the cops use), many other hunting/sporting rifles, and even a lot of shotguns. I have yet to see anyone open carrying one in real life or on video, especially since it is illegal. In some states you can acquire an assault rifle with a strict and special license.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-13T15:31:29.1679957-05:00
Assault weapons are defined by many factors ... Full auto capability not being the only one.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.