imported post
Before you read this, please try to put your preconceptions aside. This letter is my honest assessment of our seemingly different viewpoints.
The stated mission of the Brady Campaign is to create "an America free from gun violence where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities." Surely everybody can agree that those are worthy goals to strive to achieve.
Open carrying individuals don't have a mission statement, but we probably all agree that reducing violence and crime is a major goal which we hope to achieve by open carrying. We hope to achieve this by arming more of the law abiding community, which will put fear in the hearts of criminals everywhere.
Taken at a purely face value, there is little reason why we can't both work together to achieve our goals. However, there is some nuance to our stated goals that we haven't covered yet.
The Brady Campaign hopes to achieve their goals of making law abiding citizens safer by getting restrictive gun laws passed. Their logic is that if we can reduce the amount of guns, we can reduce the amount of gun violence. Obviously if we could reduce the amount of guns to zero, this goal would be achieved. The problem that many people
have with this plan of attack is that guns are already immersed into American society. There are millions upon millions of guns in this country. Constitutional issues aside, removing them all would be an impossible task.
So if the removal of guns is impossible, then what is the next best idea? It would seem reasonable that we would want to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm others. If guns will exist no matter what, lets keep them in the hands of law abiding citizens and away from those who use them to their unfair advantage. Personally, I don't know of any open carry advocates who would disagree with this goal. Nobody that I've met online or in person has any desire to arm criminals.
If this is the next best choice, how are we not in agreement? Well, open carry advocates desire to practice what we believe is the inalienable right: the right to not only keep arms, but to bear arms. We believe that law abiding citizens can reduce violence and crime without ever needing to touch our firearms. If a criminal knows that any significant percentage of the population is armed, there will be a disincentive for them to commit a crime against a person.
The Brady Campaign has a problem with this. They would rather not have people carry firearms around, unless that person is a police officer. I can understand their reasoning; if a person carries a firearm around, then it is more readily accessible, so therefore it must have a higher likelihood to be used, and thus, create more gun violence. However there is a counterargument to this line of reasoning; if a person carries a firearm around, then it is more readily accessible, so therefore it must have a higher likelihood to be seen or used against criminals, and thus, prevent violence and crime. Let's look at a couple
of hypotheticals for a moment.
Lets pretend that you're a bank robber and you live in a state where there aren't any guns other than the ones that police officers have. Next month you plan on robbing a bank because your funds are running low. You sit down on your couch one night, flip on the TV, and see a news report on how your state has changed its gun laws so anybody can buy a firearm and carry it on them without restrictions, as long as they are a law abiding citizen. This bothers you a bit, but you don't think much of it.
A month goes by and now your planned bank heist is set for tomorrow. You sit down on your couch again, turn on the TV, and there's a news story on how a third of the population now owns and carries a firearm on a regular basis. Now you start to really consider this. If you go into the bank tomorrow, and there are 12 people there, then at least four will statistically have a firearm on them. You have absolutely no desire to get shot tomorrow during your heist. You decide that you'll have to find some other way to get your money.
The beauty with this hypothetical is that the sheer knowledge that law abiding people could be carrying weapons has prevented crime. Everybody benefits from the few who choose to arm themselves either openly or concealed. Even if a person who doesn't like guns is walking home at night, and he has to walk through a bad area, he will benefit because criminals won't know if that person is armed or not. The end result is that crime against people drops as criminals turn to crimes against property, or move out of the state, or find some other less risky crime to commit, or even retire as a criminal and get
a job.
This is the typical "pro-gun" scenario. Now I'll cover two versions of the typical "anti-gun" scenario.
You're an open carrier and you're at Starbucks Coffee one afternoon with your friends, talking and laughing about things. A robber comes in, points a gun around the place, and starts demanding money from the cashier. The open carrier, realizing that he can stop the robber, draws his weapon, and orders him to put his hands up. The robber turns and fires at the open carrier, the open carrier fires at the robber. The robber runs away, but two innocent bystanders have been shot and killed. Obviously this is an awful tragedy.
The second version goes like this. You're an open carrier and you're at Starbucks Coffee one afternoon with your friends, talking and laughing about things. One of your friends and you get into a heated argument after a while and he pushes you. Feeling that your life is in danger, you draw your weapon, he goes to punch you and you shoot him fearing for your life. A horrible waste of life...a tragedy for sure.
With both of these scenarios, if the open carrier is instead a police officer, the same results could occur. Sure, it's possible that the officer may have more experience firing a firearm and therefore be a better shooter in a controlled environment. But it isn't a guarantee that the same scenarios don't end with the same result. Police officers are human, they make mistakes, they succumb to emotional factors and their ability to perform fine motor skills under stress is equally capable of failing.
From my perspective, the Brady Campaign must come to one of three conclusions with regards to open carrying. One, if somebody wishes to carry a firearm, then that person must demonstrate a level of proficiency that ensures that he or she will perform well under pressure. This applies to everybody, meaning both police officers as well as others. Or two, nobody can carry a weapon with them. This counts for police officers as well as others. Or three, any law abiding person can carry a firearm, but we should try to encourage people who do so to practice and train to become experienced with them.
I believe choice one is nigh on impossible to certify. A real stressful situation is always different from a controlled, simulated stressful situation. I also believe this choice violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as well as the second amendment. The second choice is possible, but again, it violates the second amendment. The third choice is both possible, doesn't violate anybody's rights, and encourages gun owners to improve their usage of firearms.
Practically, the third choice is what everybody should be striving toward. Lets petition the state government to not only encourage gun owners to become proficient with their arms, but to encourage law abiding men and women to do their part in reducing violence and crime. If every upstanding person in our great country carried their firearms with them, and would take it upon themselves to protect their neighbors, then we can both meet our goal of reducing violence down to levels we can only dream about. This is an aspirational goal that is entirely possible to achieve within our lifetime.
Lets try to achieve it.
Before you read this, please try to put your preconceptions aside. This letter is my honest assessment of our seemingly different viewpoints.
The stated mission of the Brady Campaign is to create "an America free from gun violence where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities." Surely everybody can agree that those are worthy goals to strive to achieve.
Open carrying individuals don't have a mission statement, but we probably all agree that reducing violence and crime is a major goal which we hope to achieve by open carrying. We hope to achieve this by arming more of the law abiding community, which will put fear in the hearts of criminals everywhere.
Taken at a purely face value, there is little reason why we can't both work together to achieve our goals. However, there is some nuance to our stated goals that we haven't covered yet.
The Brady Campaign hopes to achieve their goals of making law abiding citizens safer by getting restrictive gun laws passed. Their logic is that if we can reduce the amount of guns, we can reduce the amount of gun violence. Obviously if we could reduce the amount of guns to zero, this goal would be achieved. The problem that many people
have with this plan of attack is that guns are already immersed into American society. There are millions upon millions of guns in this country. Constitutional issues aside, removing them all would be an impossible task.
So if the removal of guns is impossible, then what is the next best idea? It would seem reasonable that we would want to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm others. If guns will exist no matter what, lets keep them in the hands of law abiding citizens and away from those who use them to their unfair advantage. Personally, I don't know of any open carry advocates who would disagree with this goal. Nobody that I've met online or in person has any desire to arm criminals.
If this is the next best choice, how are we not in agreement? Well, open carry advocates desire to practice what we believe is the inalienable right: the right to not only keep arms, but to bear arms. We believe that law abiding citizens can reduce violence and crime without ever needing to touch our firearms. If a criminal knows that any significant percentage of the population is armed, there will be a disincentive for them to commit a crime against a person.
The Brady Campaign has a problem with this. They would rather not have people carry firearms around, unless that person is a police officer. I can understand their reasoning; if a person carries a firearm around, then it is more readily accessible, so therefore it must have a higher likelihood to be used, and thus, create more gun violence. However there is a counterargument to this line of reasoning; if a person carries a firearm around, then it is more readily accessible, so therefore it must have a higher likelihood to be seen or used against criminals, and thus, prevent violence and crime. Let's look at a couple
of hypotheticals for a moment.
Lets pretend that you're a bank robber and you live in a state where there aren't any guns other than the ones that police officers have. Next month you plan on robbing a bank because your funds are running low. You sit down on your couch one night, flip on the TV, and see a news report on how your state has changed its gun laws so anybody can buy a firearm and carry it on them without restrictions, as long as they are a law abiding citizen. This bothers you a bit, but you don't think much of it.
A month goes by and now your planned bank heist is set for tomorrow. You sit down on your couch again, turn on the TV, and there's a news story on how a third of the population now owns and carries a firearm on a regular basis. Now you start to really consider this. If you go into the bank tomorrow, and there are 12 people there, then at least four will statistically have a firearm on them. You have absolutely no desire to get shot tomorrow during your heist. You decide that you'll have to find some other way to get your money.
The beauty with this hypothetical is that the sheer knowledge that law abiding people could be carrying weapons has prevented crime. Everybody benefits from the few who choose to arm themselves either openly or concealed. Even if a person who doesn't like guns is walking home at night, and he has to walk through a bad area, he will benefit because criminals won't know if that person is armed or not. The end result is that crime against people drops as criminals turn to crimes against property, or move out of the state, or find some other less risky crime to commit, or even retire as a criminal and get
a job.
This is the typical "pro-gun" scenario. Now I'll cover two versions of the typical "anti-gun" scenario.
You're an open carrier and you're at Starbucks Coffee one afternoon with your friends, talking and laughing about things. A robber comes in, points a gun around the place, and starts demanding money from the cashier. The open carrier, realizing that he can stop the robber, draws his weapon, and orders him to put his hands up. The robber turns and fires at the open carrier, the open carrier fires at the robber. The robber runs away, but two innocent bystanders have been shot and killed. Obviously this is an awful tragedy.
The second version goes like this. You're an open carrier and you're at Starbucks Coffee one afternoon with your friends, talking and laughing about things. One of your friends and you get into a heated argument after a while and he pushes you. Feeling that your life is in danger, you draw your weapon, he goes to punch you and you shoot him fearing for your life. A horrible waste of life...a tragedy for sure.
With both of these scenarios, if the open carrier is instead a police officer, the same results could occur. Sure, it's possible that the officer may have more experience firing a firearm and therefore be a better shooter in a controlled environment. But it isn't a guarantee that the same scenarios don't end with the same result. Police officers are human, they make mistakes, they succumb to emotional factors and their ability to perform fine motor skills under stress is equally capable of failing.
From my perspective, the Brady Campaign must come to one of three conclusions with regards to open carrying. One, if somebody wishes to carry a firearm, then that person must demonstrate a level of proficiency that ensures that he or she will perform well under pressure. This applies to everybody, meaning both police officers as well as others. Or two, nobody can carry a weapon with them. This counts for police officers as well as others. Or three, any law abiding person can carry a firearm, but we should try to encourage people who do so to practice and train to become experienced with them.
I believe choice one is nigh on impossible to certify. A real stressful situation is always different from a controlled, simulated stressful situation. I also believe this choice violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as well as the second amendment. The second choice is possible, but again, it violates the second amendment. The third choice is both possible, doesn't violate anybody's rights, and encourages gun owners to improve their usage of firearms.
Practically, the third choice is what everybody should be striving toward. Lets petition the state government to not only encourage gun owners to become proficient with their arms, but to encourage law abiding men and women to do their part in reducing violence and crime. If every upstanding person in our great country carried their firearms with them, and would take it upon themselves to protect their neighbors, then we can both meet our goal of reducing violence down to levels we can only dream about. This is an aspirational goal that is entirely possible to achieve within our lifetime.
Lets try to achieve it.
