Why carry a firearm in public view unless you are a cop ?

[steve2470]

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/l_brooks_patterson_slams_gun-t.html

I don't get it. Can someone please lay out the rationale for me ?

edited to remove a phrase

[no limit]

1. In a lot of states that's the only way you can legally carry without a permit

[Scout]

2. 'cuz it's my right, and how dare you ask why?!!!!!

that's about all you'll get from the "supporters"

"the need canard"
:eyes:

[cleanhippie]

8. So tell us, in your infinite wisdom, what "need" is required to exercise a right?

You seem to have the answer, so just go ahead and tell us.

[jgraz]

46. No one's saying you can't openly carry. You can also wear your furry outfit or carry a lightsaber

However, some people prefer to keep their fetishes to themselves.

[armueller2001]

50. Apparently protecting yourself

And your family is considered a fetish to you? I must have a big time first aid kit fetish then..

[jgraz]

51. Feeling that you can't leave your house without your gun is a fetish

Or a paranoid delusion. Take your pick.

You want to exercise your Second Amendment rights? Be prepared for other people exercising their First Amendment rights about your ridiculous behavior.

[cowman]

53. You sure do take

liberties about why we carry guns, but the truth of the matter is that you are just another anti gun zealot who has nothing but shrill and insulting comments. But hey, keep it up, all you and your ilk do is provide us with comic relief and make the pro 2nd Amend movement easier.

[jgraz]

62. Why do you hate the First Amendment?

Are you an anti-speech zealot? How dare you complain about how I exercise my rights!

[shadowrider]

64. No one hates the first amendment. You're entitled to your opinion, as mis-guided, unfounded

and ridiculous as it is, you're entitled. Plus, you're a good source of humor.

[jgraz]

65. And you're entitled to carry your little popgun. As silly and infantile as that is.

I'll be the one pointing and laughing.

[shadowrider]

67. Uh, it ain't a popgun.

[jgraz]

69. Oh, sorry. Does your weapon feel insulted?

Maybe you two need a little alone time.

[cowman]

72. Sure had to stretch on that one didn't you

I hope you didn't hurt yourself

[jgraz]

74. Having a bit of trouble grokking the irony?

Let's recap: you complained about my "taking liberties" about why you carry guns. And you attribute this to my being an "anti gun zealot".

First: you, a pro-gunner, whines about someone else exercising their liberty

and

Second: you do so by "taking liberties" with why I raise objections.


It's funny on several levels. :rofl:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

78. Actually

my wife plays with my gun and I shoot my weapons at a shooting range.
I find your condescending attitude quite amusing, so like I said earlier, keep the comic relief coming.

[DissedByBush]

136. Always wearing your seat belt is a fetish

You don't need it for 99.99% or fewer of the miles you drive so why do you wear it?

It's just that one unexpected time you do need it, you're glad you wore it.

[proteus_lives]

56. Why vote, why worship?

Because it's my right.

Pity you don't understand that.

[jgraz]

63. Yes, but if you drop down on your knees at a Starbucks, I'm gonna call you a zealot.

Just the same as if you bring a gun in there.

[shadowrider]

66. Speaking of Starbucks, where are all the wild shootouts anti's predicted?

Huh?

[jgraz]

68. Not sure anyone predicted "wild shootouts" at Starbucks.

Just a bunch of crazies making the normal people feel uncomfortable. Just as if you walked in wearing a "God Hates Fags" t-shirt.

[shadowrider]

70. Read back through the Starbucks threads. It was a sure thing

Blood flowing in the coffee and all that.

[jgraz]

71. No thanks. You made the claim, you can point out the link.

I'm not holding my breath.

[shadowrider]

73. Uh, no

Any post I put up from those threads could be conceived as my calling out another member. I ain't gonna do that.

Do the looking for yourself if you want. If you don't, no harm no foul.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bold Lib]

84. Try starting here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x299075

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x299075#299147

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x298973#299024

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x299887#299898


Have to go now. There are more, and much richer posts, if you take some time to look.

[jgraz]

88. Thank you for wasting my time

Not a single post predicted "wild shootouts". :eyes:

[Euromutt]

122. I can add a couple

I can't wait until two people "feel threatened" and start blasting at each other in public.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=404350&mesg_id=404418

Just a matter of time...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7994032&mesg_id=7994042

Yeah, none of them used the exact words "wild shootouts." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase

[proteus_lives]

92. Just a bunch of pro-LGBT crazies making the normal people feel uncomfortable.

Sadly, you have more in common with Phelps on this issue.

You both insist on attempting to control others.

[jgraz]

93. Oh yay. Here come the civil rights comparisons

We'll be hearing the Rosa Parks analogy in 3..2..1.. :eyes:

[PavePusher]

94. It is a Civil Right.

Are Civil Rights equal in weighting, or are some more important than others? Why or why not?

For the record, I think they are all equally important and mutually reinforcing. Each one protects and strengthens the others when correctly used in the most expansive way.

If you diminish one, you diminish all.

What's your view?

[jgraz]

95. The fact that you like guns does not make you a member of a protected class.

Please quit comparing your "struggles" to those who have actually been historically discriminated against. It's seriously weak.

[PavePusher]

96. The discrimination does exist.

The proof is your posts.

I do not claim the discrimination is to the level and quantity of racism, homophobia, religous intolerance or sexism, to name a few of the more profound bigotrys, nor does it have the historical lifetime, being a relatively recent phenomenom.

But none of that means that it is not real.

By the way, nice avoidance of my complete post. As I recall, that is your modus operandi, yes?

[jgraz]

98. The discrimination is based on anti-social behavior

Just as if I insisted on exercising my First Amendment rights by yelling the N-word on a street corner. People will react badly to that, even though I have every right to do it. You may a legal right to carry a gun, but bringing one into a Starbucks is simply bad manners.

Disapproval of rude behavior is not even in the same universe as discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality. Ever been fired or denied a marriage license based on your Second Amendment views?

[PavePusher]

100. Where is the rule-book you are using to catagorize "rude behavior"?

Who is the arbiter of "bad manners"?

If the firearm was being brandished or used in a threatening manner, that would be unacceptable, but the mere existance/proximity of an item does not equate to intent.

Wasn't there a case just recently where it was ruled unConstitutional to deny the Civil Right of firearm possesion to people in public housing? Thus discrimination (governmental at that) did/does exist, and there are real harms caused by it. I have heard of people being fired because they proffessed to ownership of firearms, but I don't have documentation at hand.

[jgraz]

101. You need a "rule-book" to figure that one out? Seriously?

Maybe that's the problem here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. Not everyone subscribes to Robert Bork's theory of moral harm, you know.

To quote that notorious reactionary:

“Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”


Now, unless and until you can document actual physical harm being caused by your sensibilities being offended,
your view on the undesirability of openly carrying a handgun carries no more weight than those of a person
bothered by seeing two men kissing, or an interracial couple, or a Palestinian (or Israeli) flag.


Others approve of the sight of people openly carrying guns. I suspect most don't really care one way or the other.
You disapprove. You are well within your rights to do so. You are also free to issue a moral diktat
condemning the practice, if you so desire- and we are free to ignore it.

Why should your opinion of what is suitable carry any more weight than anyone elses'?

[jgraz]

104. Yeah, but most of us were taught manners as children

Inflicting your particular political obsession onto the rest of the public is simply anti-social and selfish. You have every right to be anti-social and selfish, just don't expect the rest of us to applaud.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Again, I point out that your opinion is *not* the metric of what is anti-social.

Nor have you shown that your opinion carries more weight than someone who approves of the idea.

You can only speak for yourself and presumably those who agree with you.

You have every right to feel that the practice of open carry is anti-social and selfish -but you have no objective way
of showing that it is. And, frankly, short of someone brandishing, pointing or firing a gun at you or your vicinity, I
don't see how it is.

No one is asking your approval. They are demanding your tolerance for what is legal under law.

[jgraz]

111. Missing the point again.

You don't want "tolerance", you want silent acquiescence. People not only have every right to feel that your actions are wrong, we have every right to say so. No one is going to stop you from openly carrying a gun into a public restaurant, but you shouldn't expect to be greeted with candy and flowers. And if the management of that business refuses you service -- something totally within *their* Constitutional rights -- try not to whine about it.

[PavePusher]

113. Please, cite to where anyone said you could not have and vocalise your feelings.

We are saying that there is no general consensus on your opinion being correct or mainstream, as you have claimed.

And guess what? There are places trying to stop open carry. The entire state of California for one. Google AB1934. So, another claim demonstrated to be untrue.

Lastly, no-one here has ever said private property owners shopuld be forced to accept people bearing firearms. If they don't want us, we'll happily spread the word and spend out dollars elsewhere in this reccessed economy. Not even tangential to "whining".

[jgraz]

115. No, I'm just called an "anti-gun zealot" if I object to firearms at Denny's

We are saying that there is no general consensus on your opinion being correct or mainstream, as you have claimed.

Which is why it's my *opinion*. I'd love to see a poll on open carry in restaurants. I doubt your view would be in the majority.


And guess what? There are places trying to stop open carry. The entire state of California for one. Google AB1934. So, another claim demonstrated to be untrue.

Fine by me. I should have said "no one is trying to stop you from legally carrying a firearm." If it's shown that it's Constitutional to ban open carry, that's a different story.


Lastly, no-one here has ever said private property owners shopuld be forced to accept people bearing firearms. If they don't want us, we'll happily spread the word and spend out dollars elsewhere in this reccessed economy. Not even tangential to "whining".

Cool. You can join all those pissed-off smokers who brought the restaurant and bar industry to its knees. Oh wait...

[PavePusher]

117. Smoking in restaurants and bars?

In most places where banned, it's a matter of state law, not choice. In places where it's by choice, I wonder if there was a revenue dip afterwards?

[Euromutt]

119. We have one illustrative example of a smoking ban being local law, not state law

Pierce County, in Washington state, imposed a smoking ban in restaurants and bars while there was not yet a state-wide smoking ban in place. The effect was noticeable: smokers started going to neighboring King County and the Indian reservations instead, and quite a few places in Pierce were driven out of business, or came perilously close to it. So Pierce County grudgingly rescinded the county-level smoking ban, but started agitating for a state-level smoking ban. Evidently, the way to make a smoking ban stick without wrecking business is to take away the customers' choices to take their custom elsewhere.

[jgraz]

121. Really? I can't find anything on any business going under during that ban

The only thing that comes close is winging about the ban by casino owners two weeks after it went into effect.

At any rate, I find it hard to believe that many people are jonesing to take their sidearm to dinner with them. For the few radicals and paranoiacs who would be offended, most businesses would probably be relieved to have them go elsewhere.

[cleanhippie]

107. In two posts, you went from it being "bad manners" to it being "political obsession"

Which is it?

[jgraz]

109. Try reading more than two posts

You'll see I'm being consistent.

[cleanhippie]

110. I did, hence my conclusion.

Which is it, bad manners or political obsession?

[jgraz]

112. Ah, so it's reading comprehension rather than laziness.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[cleanhippie]

114. Seriously, I don't see what you are getting at.

I think that much of the time, you and I are on the same side of arguments, but in this instance, I'm not following you. Maybe it is reading comprehension fail on my part.

Going through this sub-thread, I do not see what you are saying, I see you call it bad manners in one post and political obsession in another.

I am willing to admit I am wrong, if you can point our where i missed something.

[jgraz]

116. Both are correct. If someone has a political obsession, forcing it on others is bad manners.

As an example, I'm a huge supporter of gay rights. When a coffee shop at my college kicked out two lesbians for kissing, the LGBT groups on campus staged a "kiss in" at the shop. This is something I strongly supported (though I declined to actively participate ;) ).

When they decided to extend their "kiss in" to all campus restaurants, that's where I stopped supporting it. It's one thing to make a targeted political statement, another thing to continually annoy and disturb people who have no stake in your cause.

IMHO, there are two reasons to openly carry a firearm. 1) You want to make an in-your-face political statement and 2) you really *are* that paranoid. If you do option 1 at a rally or as part of a particular protest, I support that (even though I disagree with your goals). If you do it as part of your day-to-day activities, you're just being an asshole.

[cleanhippie]

118. But you ignore the many other possible reasons.

You seem to only accept two reasons for carrying, but the argument can be made that there are many more reasons to carry, the single biggest reason, IMO, is because we can because its a right.
While I see the point you are trying to make, I do not agree with your analogy. Carrying a gun legally, is not bad manners nor is is political obsession.

[jgraz]

120. Just having a right is not a reason to exercise it.

You have the right to shout the N-word on a street corner. You have the right to wear an SS insignia tie pin. You have the right to eat Cheetohs until you weigh 500 lbs.

Just because you CAN do something is not a reason TO do something.

[Glassunion]

123. You make analogies to destructive or offensive behavior.

You obviously have a different gauge as to what would be considered normal behavior.

I have no issue whatsoever with people who openly carry a firearm. I chose not to open carry.

It is hardly a destructive behavior. The only way to "equate" it to being a destructive behavior would be to add to it with "What if" statements. But the act of carrying a firearm in and of itself is not destructive.

Some people may have an issue or be offended, however the last time I checked I could not fine where it is a right in this country to not be offended. So, the individual who is offended has to learn to deal with that.

Just as I know that guy on the street corner calling me the N word, offends me, I however will defend his right to do so. Sometimes liberties and freedom sting a bit. But the other end of the spectrum would be far worse.

[cowman]

128. So by that standard

the Mississippi Freedom Riders of the 60's had the right to go to MS. and protest for civil rights but because it offended the people of MS. they should have exercised constraint?
All civil rights are equal whether it pisses people off or not.

[PavePusher]

127. There are more options than those...

whether you chose to aknowledge them or not. Reality doesn't care.

[cleanhippie]

106. Yes, I do.

Because what you consider "bad manners" another does not. WHo decides what "bad manners" are? You? Me?

[proteus_lives]

97. The blind are blind.

Why do you feel the need to control others?

[jgraz]

102. Commenting on an issue is now trying to "control others"?

Someone needs to explain to you how Teh Internets work.

[cleanhippie]

108. Who is trying to control anyone?

[proteus_lives]

91. If you don't interfere with my rights, I could give a tin shit what you call me.

You have a right to your opinion. I respect that.

Another thing you sadly don't understand.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

4. Why not?

It is just another tool (and a civil right) like any other. I don't get it. Can someone please lay out the rationale for me, if there is a logical one?

[piratefish08]

mine is bigger than yours?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Why not?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

7. Because you want to?

I prefer to carry mine concealed anyway, but to each his-or her-own.

Besides, I usually carry more than one gun at a time, and some people are put off by it.

And I feel better when no one knows.

mark

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Why do you feel better when no-one knows? nt

[shadowrider]

37. It's called the "surprise" factor

bad guy walks in BRANDISHING his weapon and thinks everyone is an easy target as he sees no guns.

Voila, all of a sudden he has one pointed at him he didn't expect. What's he gonna do? 5 gets you 10 he hauls ass (in most cases, and there are exceptions)

[walldude]

9. Cause this is MURIKA!

Second Amendment, Guns don't kill people, people kill people without guns, so we must defend ourselves from the people who kill people with the guns that don't kill people so if we all carry guns no one will get killed because only people kill people with guns that don't kill people.

[cleanhippie]

11. I hope there is sarcasm in there somewhere.

Because if you really feel that way, then you have been badly misinformed.

[walldude]

15. No I was dead serious

:eyes:

If a statement like that needs a sarcasm tag then I now know why I don't post in the gungeon.

[cleanhippie]

24. Then you ave been badly misinformed.

How very unfortunate for you.

[walldude]

30. ??? Wow.... you really thought that was a serious post?

And the rolling eyes in the second one didn't give it away? Like I said this is why I don't come in here... Would someone actually post something like that and be serious about it? I made it as over the top as possible

[cleanhippie]

32. Then I truly apologize.

But things like that ARE posted with true sincerity, all the time.

[shadowrider]

38. Unfortunately, yes, posts like that are made in all seriousness in here all the time

I'd give you names but it's agin the rules to "call people out". As such, peruse the gun threads and they'll make themselves obvious.

[Euromutt]

125. Y'know, Bush has (thankfully) been out of office for over 18 months...

Can we quit it with the fucking "Murika" already? It was never particularly funny to begin with, and now that it's no longer relevant, it's not funny at all. And frankly, the tendency on the part of some people to try to paint pro-RKBA types as being to a man under-educated yokels is rather condescending and tiresome.

[Brickbat]

12. I always wonder why people wear crosses as necklaces, m'self.

[DrDan]

13. "As it stands,

Michigan law allows any person over the age of 18 without a criminal record to carry a holstered firearm in public, except at a bank, church, court, theater, sports arena, day care center, hospital, bar or federal facility."

So churches and fed facilities are protected - but not schools.

Makes sense . . . .:sarcasm:

[cleanhippie]

16. First of all, preventing lawful carry anywhere is not "protecting" anything at all.

And to think that preventing lawful carry anywhere DOES "protect" anything or anyone is pure fantasy.

[cowman]

18. So tell me Dr Genius

how do you keep criminals from carrying guns into schools? Because you put up an "Gun Free Zone" sign?:rofl: Yeah, we all know how well that works.

[jazzhound]

99. Just decided on cowman's retirement present!

http://www.cafepress.com/sccc_gfz.178973314#

[cowman]

124. I like it n/t

[X_Digger]

83. Federal facilities fall under the purview of a different body of law, not the state.

Churches? Seems kind of silly to me.

There was a federal law prohibiting guns within X feet of a school, but it was ruled unconstitutional (not a power granted to the federal government- they tried to stretch 'interstate commerce' past its breaking limit.)

It's up to the state (legally) whether or not to disallow guns around schools. But of course, that doesn't actually stop anyone from doing so who wishes harm to students (or religious practitioners). It merely stops those who obey the law from doing so.

[zipplewrath]

14. As someone else has pointed out

A slightly strange quirk in many state laws is that you need a permit to carry a "concealed" weapon. However, in some states, you may "openly carry" without a permit (within some restrictions). There are reasons for it, which are mostly obsolete, but the result is that many folks now prefer open carry because they don't have to bother to get a permit.

[Caliman73]

17. I am not a proponent of open carry. I wouldn't do it. However...

I do have to ask though, why should police carry openly? They don't have to do so either. In my opinion police open carry for a couple of reasons, easy access to the weapon if they need to defend themselves or detain a suspect, and to project an image. I would imagine proponents of open carry would have similar reasons to the police minus the law enforcement aspect of detaining a suspect. The ownership and carrying of firearms is a right of citizens subject to certain restrictions. The police, because they are sworn civil servants charged with enforcing community laws, have less restrictions on the type of firearm and where and how they can carry. Private citizens however do have the right to carry in ways that comply with local jurisdictions. Kinda like the people building the Cordoba Center have a right to build wherever they want according to local jurisdiction without having to answer to the rationale for wanting to build 2 or 10 blocks from the former WTC. Liberty is a tricky business sometimes.

[steve2470]

20. That makes complete sense, thank you, sincerely

I ask these questions to be educated, and I have been. Thanks.

[cleanhippie]

35. No, thank you.

For being responsive to a rational, reasonable response to your question.

[spin]

52. Police often carry both openly and concealed .

Many carry a BUG (Back Up Weapon) in an ankle holster or pocket if their department allows it.

Usually the police carry a full sized firearm on their duty belt. There is no doubt that a .40 caliber Glock 22 has an intimidation factor.



I have known police officers who carried a S&W Model 642 snub nosed .38 revolver in a jacket pocket. When they performed
a traffic stop they would innocently walk up the the drivers window with their hand in their jacket pocket holding the revolver which was pointed at the driver.



Both methods of carry offer advantages and some disadvantages.

[Caliman73]

54. don't forget...

the drop gun with the serial numbers filed off...:hide:

Yes, many officers do carry firearms concealed and openly. My brother in law carries a Glock 21 for his sidearm and the 36 as a back up. I personally, as a non-LEO would not carry openly because I feel it would be disruptive, but that is my personal choice. I would not be freaked out by civilian open carry and have been around some who carry openly.

[spin]

58. You're right. I totally forgot the drop gun. (n/t)

[Glassunion]

59. Don't forget...

You have to tape up the grips with masking tape.

[spin]

61. I once read of a cop who used a "drop knife" ...

unfortunately hair from his cat was found on the knife. Oops.

I'm sure some cops do have and perhaps use drop weapons but with modern forensics that practice is probably declining.

[Euromutt]

79. Psst, "ham sandwich." The term is "ham sandwich."

Or is that only in New Orleans?

[Glassunion]

80. Ouch!

Truth stings a little.

[HereSince1628]

19. Well, it would facilitate a faster draw

:sarcasm:

[cowman]

22. Or it just might

make some asshole of a criminal think twice about committing a crime when there are lawful armed citizens around

[HereSince1628]

26. Just in case you aren't already aware

this is one of those topics where no matter what is said, everyone simply hardens their positions.

And I apologize for intruding into this forum.

[Caliman73]

34. It is not an intrusion if you come to discuss and debate the issue.

It is an intrusion and a waste of time if you only come to make sarcastic comments without any intent to engage one way or the other. I disagree with your assertion that "no matter what is said, everyone simply hardens their positions". That seems to be a projection of your own style. There have been several posters who have altered their opinions or at least understood where people on the other side are coming from. There are certainly people on both sides who are passionate and have entrenched positions, but to imply that discussion and debate is pointless seems more an admission of your own position than an observation of other people's.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Which kind of undercuts the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it? nt

[cleanhippie]

36. It kinda doesn't, actually.

[spin]

49. Not really ...

I only open carry was allowed, a criminal could check out the place where he wanted to commit his crime and if he didn't see a firearm he could be confident that he was in a shooting gallery.

If you have only concealed carry, the criminal has a hard time figuring out if his victims are armed.

States that allow both open and concealed carry must give a a criminal who wants to commit serious crimes in public an Excedrin headache.

[jgraz]

45. Or, it would just let him prioritize his targets.

[PavePusher]

47. Doesn't seem to happen with any statistical significance.

Unless I've missed documented evidence to the contrary?

Any "targeting" I've seen usually seems to be towards visible uniforms, or known security.

[jgraz]

48. Neither do the open carry proponents' Rambo fantasies.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. What "Rambo fantasies"? Another 'expert' here claims they do it to bother people.

If you lot keep publicly contradicting each other, the disinterested observer just might

get the notion that for all their bafflegab and fearmongering, gun control advocates don't actually

know what motivates an entire group of people to do something....

[mvccd1000]

60. I think you have that backwards.

IMO, the concealed carry people are the ones who hope to get the "surprise factor" and pull their guns after a criminal has started his robbery/shooting/brandishing.

Since the mythical shootouts where the bad guys come in and target the open carriers first happen, oh, about never, let's look for a scenario more likely to occur in real life:

It's after 11pm on a weeknight, you and I have both been out in our garages working on a project when we realize we forgot to get cash out of the ATM for lunch at work tomorrow. Each of us drive up to our local bank to hit the ATM. You're carrying concealed and I'm openly carrying.

If some tweaker is out cruising around looking for an easy victim, which of us do you think he is likely to choose? You, with no visible weapon, or me, with a pistol in a holster on my belt?

How about a scenario from the other side of the fence? You're sitting in your car in front of a liquor store, nervous as hell because you're considering going in to rob it. You only see one customer in the store, but he appears to have a pistol openly carried on his belt. Are you going to go in shooting, or are you simply going to drive a mile up the road to the next liquor store?

I think open carry people, in general, would rather simply have the criminal look elsewhere for his victim. Concealed carry people hope he will unsuspectingly choose them so they get to exercise their "tactical advantage."

To me, that makes CCW the Rambo method, and open carriers the ones who prefer deterrence.

Care to share why you view it differently?

[Euromutt]

81. "Rambo fantasies"? Don't those require a large knife and a compound hunting bow?

I don't see too many people carrying the latter openly (except maybe during bow-hunting season), and they're a bit hard to conceal. Rambo doesn't actually use a handgun in the first three films.

[east texas lib]

86. Don't forget the tactical nuke arrowheads...

Long as we're talkin' fantasies.:D

[SteveM]

132. Still playing culture war? GOP loves it. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

87. Criminals don't do that.

Your basic public store armed robber is very low status in the criminal world. Store armed robberies are low-reward, low-effort, high-risk crimes, and are avoided by more intelligent criminals. The thugs who do that sort of stuff are usually of lower intelligence, often have Fetal Alcohol/Drugs Syndrome, and don't plan out their crimes in advance. When the enter the store their adrenaline is already high and so they will already have tunnel vision. In real-life, they almost always miss seeing armed customers.

[onehandle]

21. To bother people.

There is no other logical reason in America.



And of course to threaten a sitting President:

[cowman]

23. You bother me therefore your

1st amend right should be restricted, see how utterly stupid that sounds

[oneshooter]

55. Not in his case. n/t

[cleanhippie]

25. The same could be said about your posts.

to bother people, no other logical reason.

[cowman]

27. Try something new please.

[Bold Lib]

28. You mean, other than bothering people? I don't think that is possible.

[rrneck]

40. You're too easily bothered. Stay ;home. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU

For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:

.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

Which brings up two questions for you:

1. What harm is had by someone carrying a handgun near you? "It bothers me" hardly qualifies- I'm bothered by overcooked vegetables,
but I don't get into a snit if someone else eats them near me.

And the most important one:

2. Where are all those shootouts at the condiment counter that you and Garry Trudeau have been shilling for months?

Millions of gun owners, thousands of Starbucks- at least one box of those stupid long straws should have been splattered
with blood by now....

[Euromutt]

82. You have it exactly wrong

A large part of the open carry movement's agenda is to seek to accustom people to the sight of a private citizen carrying a firearm; carrying without ostentation and without intent to intimidate anybody. Now, it should be pointed out that all those Teabagger assholes who showed up carrying openly at Obama's "town hall" meetings last summer were not part of the pre-existing open carry movement, and in fact, said pre-existing open carry movement was pretty honked off about it because the Teabaggers did a massive amount of damage to their cause.

Still, it says something about you that you dismiss out of hand the possibility that there might any reason to OC apart from "bothering people."

[slackmaster]

31. It's very difficult or impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in some states

Like mine.

[Turbineguy]

39. You could get arrested

if you walk around showing your schwantz. And laughed at too.

[shadowrider]

41. Heh. and most of the guys pointing and laughing would be saying to themselves

"Why the hell am I pointing and laughing, his is bigger than mine!!!!!!!"

[Remmah2]

42. Some may find the message on T-shirts offensive.

So big deal, it's called the first amendment.

Open carry, concealed carry I see no difference. Most of the time you can pick a person out in the crowd that is carrying concealed anyway.

If a person is practicing open carry, keep in mind it's not polite to stare.

[PavePusher]

44. Lots of good info here:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?83-Why-Open-Carry

Read the stickys at the top.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. Why not? N/T

[pipoman]

89. I read through about half of this thread..

so if anyone else already said this...well, sorry for the redundancy.

Most people by far who are arguing that people should be allowed to carry guns openly, don't ever carry guns openly.

Many people who strongly supported Larry Flint's First Amendment fight didn't read Hustler with any degree of regularity.

Many people who counter protested in Wichita at Dr. Tiller's women's clinic never had an abortion.

This is about the belief that in order to best protect our rights, we must fight for the rights of the extreme liberal end of the continuum. I believe in the most liberal interpretation of all rights, not just the ones I like, just like I will fight for the right of the fascist to proclaim his beliefs even though I find it physically sickening.

[rrneck]

90. Delete

GreenStormCloud beat me to it. I should always read the thread first.

[shadowrider]

126. What if the cop is off duty and out of uniform, is it ok for them to open carry then?

Assuming no one knows they're an off-duty cop.

[tourivers83]

129. I feel the need,

Once upon a time the old man told me, “I would rather carry for sixty years and not need it then to need it one time and not have it.” :beer:

[shadowrider]

130. That's it in a nutshell

[Euromutt]

131. As a thought experiment, why don't we turn the question around?

Why do law enforcement officers carry their firearms openly?

And, more importantly, why do you not have problem with them doing so, whereas you evidently do have a problem with private citizens doing so?

[Katya Mullethov]

133. Thats easy

"Cuz your ol' lady digs it when I dress up like a cowboy . "

[Katya Mullethov]

134. No wait !

No wait .... that is what my little red NRA book says I am supposed to say when a cop asks why I have a gun in my car . I will have to search more for your particular concern .

[gravity556]

135. I'd much prefer to see a holstered pistol

than those plaid shorts that seem to be coming into style now. Gads, those things are eye searingly ugly.

And I open carry when it's too hot outside to even think about putting on an IWB holster. I also (gasp) hold doors for people and (shock! horror!) tend to tip at least 20%. But all that is eclipsed by my evil gun! The horror! The horror!

Also, it negates your "open carry is bad because it's scary" position when you also state "I'll be the one pointing and laughing."