Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 118

Thread: Your Reasons

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    First, I'd like to say that although my mind is open it's not gullible. As my username shows, I am not a supporter of open carry laws. I'm on the fence and leaning heavily towards concealed carry on heavily vetted civilians only. In fact, the only reason I know of this website at all is because of a troll on another forum I frequent linking here and spouting flawed and borderline psychotic rhetoric that, honestly, seems designed to breed disdain to those that support these politics. It would be easy enough to search out rationales on wikis, ezines, and the many, many threads on this site, but then I run into a plethora of biased, sensationalist, and badly-grounded information I'd be forced to sift through in an attempt to find the shreds of merit. Since the quality of a position is marked by its ease of explanation, I ask plainly, here: what are your rational arguments for open carry?

  2. #2
    Regular Member NY2AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...ry-in-Kennesaw

    /thread

    P.S. How much do you guys get payed in the field of pervasive vagrancy. Also, how does one get such a job? It must be nice working from home. Tell Paul Helmke and Cass Sunstein I said hi
    If ever you find yourself in a situation where you can't be safe, be violent!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Nice fielding NY2AZ.

    Let's let this thread die a trolls death.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    I'm not a troll, I just wanted to see your side of the argument to better deal with my own troll.

    Edit: Pervasive vagrancy? If you're implying what I think you are, that's an impressive level of paranoia. Please tell me I'm wrong. I only wanted rational discussion of an issue I'm unfamiliar with, I don't want to be seen as a troll.

  5. #5
    Regular Member NY2AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    TheSkeptic wrote:
    I'm not a troll, I just wanted to see your side of the argument to better deal with my own troll.

    Edit: Pervasive vagrancy? If you're implying what I think you are, that's an impressive level of paranoia. Please tell me I'm wrong. I only wanted rational discussion of an issue I'm unfamiliar with, I don't want to be seen as a troll.
    Sorry if you are not a troll, but as you can see from the second post, this forum has been swarmed with fly by night trolls recently
    If ever you find yourself in a situation where you can't be safe, be violent!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    That's fine.

    Do you have any examples besides a single incident covered by an article? I mean, personal examples are pretty self-limiting. Have there been studies done on the differing effects between concealed carry and open carry or open carry and no carry at all?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    TheSkeptic wrote:
    That's fine.

    Do you have any examples besides a single incident covered by an article? I mean, personal examples are pretty self-limiting. Have there been studies done on the differing effects between concealed carry and open carry or open carry and no carry at all?
    A) You are a troll.

    B)" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    T.Jefferson, G. Washington, S. Adams, B. Franklin, P. Henry, P. Revere, J. Adams, J. Smith..............all open carried!
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    TheSkeptic wrote:
    That's fine.

    Do you have any examples besides a single incident covered by an article? I mean, personal examples are pretty self-limiting. Have there been studies done on the differing effects between concealed carry and open carry or open carry and no carry at all?
    Given the short time between you original post and the second posters responce it did have the appearance of a trolling tag team.

    I'll give yu the benefit of the doubt for now.

    As to your query about a study, yes there has been one.

    Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, by James Write and Peter Rossi, Aldine 1986

    In a study they conducted, interviewing convicted felons in prisons accross the nation, they found that 60% admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they KNEW that the victem was armed (OC would disclose this)and 40% admitted that they avoided committing their crimes when they THOUGHT that the victem MIGHT BE armed (CC leaves them guessing).

    At this point we only know of 2 occassions (for certain)in which an OCer was involved in a self-defense shooting. One involved a man walking out to his car after dark to get something and was accausted by 2 would be robbers. They might not have been able to see the OCer's sidearm. The other incident occured in Virginia, when a would be armed robber walked into a small grocery store and pulled a gun on the owner (who was at the register) and demanded the money from the register then shot the owner. A customer was OCing a single action revolver at the time and drew and open fire on the robber. A firefight insued between the 2, the robber lost the fight and his life. No one else was injured except the store owner.

    All other documented events in which an armed citizen used his/her firearm in self-defense or defense of another appear to have been CCer's. This leads us to believe that we have less of a chance of having to use our sidearms to stop a crime if we OC rather than CC.

    We have no statistics to back up our belief that OC deters criminal behavior because it's hard to tabulate such occurrances when the only person knowing when they occur may be the criminals themselves. There have been reports on these forums of suspected aborting crimes, due to suspicious behavior in the presence of OC, but no real confirmation. So far, the only one that we've heard of is the one that NY2AZ linked to. I think we're still trying to get official varification on that one.

    We can go into other reasons if you like, but I'll let you digest this much first.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    I wasn't aware that thirteen minutes was a short time on this forum, hee hee! Thank you for your answer, it's exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for. You say you have more and I'd love to see it.

    Edit: fixed typing errors

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Comfort.

    If you CC all the time you know that you have to dress around your weapon. In summer months this can be uncomfortable, since you may have to wear more clothing than you'd prefer, or carry a smaller framed pistol. OC doesn't require "dressing around", we just hang them on our belts much as we would a cell phone or iPod.

    Not having our sidearms covered by clothing makes it easier and quicker to get to if we need them, as well.

    OC also serves as a means to desensitize the public to the idea of law abiding citizens (LAC) carrying sidearms for defensive purposes. It seems to be a good way to counter the anti-gun rhetoric that guns are bad and dangerous to the public. The more the general public sees of LAC going about their daily business, armed, and nothing bad happening, the less credibility the anti-gun groups have. CC is "out of sight - out of mind."

    The Brady Campaign claim that OC is intimidating to the public doesn't seem to hold water, where I live. Half the folks don't seem to notice my sidearm and those that do don't seem alarmed at all. If anyone is intimidated by it, they sure do hide it well. I've yet to have a negative encounter over my OC handgun. The only questions I've had to field about it have been what model and cal am I carrying, or what one has to do to get a permit to carry. (TN requires a Handgun Carry Permit [HCP] to OC or CC)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    OC carries the risk that someone less responsible can take the gun away from you. Not everyone is a good LAC, after all. And as far as I've been able to find, there's no correlation between gun ownership and a drop in violent crime. Studies down in that avenue usually end up with an inconclusive result. Is there something I'm missing from your side?

    gogodawgs wrote:
    TheSkeptic wrote:
    That's fine.

    Do you have any examples besides a single incident covered by an article? I mean, personal examples are pretty self-limiting. Have there been studies done on the differing effects between concealed carry and open carry or open carry and no carry at all?
    A)* You are a troll.
    If you really don't believe me at this point, I don't know how to convince you. I haven't been irrational, confrontational, nor have I flamed anyone. I've said my peace about this, I guess, so if anyone else still wishes to call me a troll go ahead. Turn the other cheek and all that.


    B)*" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    There's been a lot of evolution of the idea in public opinion and civil discourse, but when literally read that amendment clearly applies to those belonging to or expressing a desire to belong to militias. And while it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't say that it must be openly and in public. To clarify: I am not saying that there isn't legal justification for open carry politics. I am only saying that a literal reading of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly support open carry politics.

    T.*Jefferson, G. Washington, S. Adams, B. Franklin, P. Henry, P. Revere, J. Adams, J. Smith..............all open carried!
    This is plainly false, American historical figures did not carry their weapons with them everywhere they went. If I'm remembering correctly, Paul Revere didn't even own a rifle.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    Please hang around here and read some threads and look around the news section. Consider coming to an open carry meet and talking with folks in person about their decisions. You will get all of the information you need and maybe find that you like what people are doing, or maybe not.

    Folks are going to see this as a troll thread, especially with the first reply included. I say we just lock it, there are plenty of threads on the site that give people's reasons for OC.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011

    Post imported post

    shootemup wrote:
    These people are not rational and do not have rational arguments. They are losers who have resorted to weaponry to make them feel real. And you know they are just itching to load up at the slightest provocation.
    BANG :what:. No closed season on trolls.

    Clear 'nuff, now you and your brother/ boyfriend can go home now...bye,bye.
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    I wanted a summation, that's all. Some basic discourse. If you're going to let a single troll reply to my topic color your entire perception of me as a poster before I've even been able to dip my toe into the community, as it were, then I'm hardly surprised this forum has troll problems at all. You lot are making yourselves very easy marks.

    I guess I'm just staying a skeptic.

    Edit: I can't bear to be civil if no one else is going to be. With only two exception, you've all acted like children. That doesn't make a forum, it creates a circlejerk.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Because I can!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clio, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    TheSkeptic wrote:
    I wanted a summation, that's all. Some basic discourse. If you're going to let a single troll reply to my topic color your entire perception of me as a poster before I've even been able to dip my toe into the community, as it were, then I'm hardly surprised this forum has troll problems at all. You lot are making yourselves very easy marks.

    I guess I'm just staying a skeptic.

    Edit: I can't bear to be civil if no one else is going to be. With only two exception, you've all acted like children. That doesn't make a forum, it creates a circlejerk.
    It is pretty easy to read on this forum and find the people useful enough to get the information you might be looking for. So i would like to give you my views.

    I open carry my gun because i do not want to use it, and, i do not feel if someone were to point a gun in my face i am fast enough, or smooth enough to, to pull my piece while keeping my safety first. I will not be a target if it is known i have it. criminals that look at potential targets do not pick ones they know are armed. As far as your comment on "OC carries the risk that someone less responsible can take the gun away from you." if you find any reports to back that up then please post them.

    here is some literature if you have a minute

    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    * Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


    Florida
    United States
    homicide rate
    -36%
    -0.4%
    firearm homicide rate
    -37%
    +15%
    handgun homicide rate
    -41%
    +24%


    http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm

    * Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"
    Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good
    Americansuse guns to protect themselves, their families, and their
    livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to
    a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million
    protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved
    lives.
    [2]

    * Myth #2 "Guns are dangerous when used for protection"

    US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most
    effective means of defense.
    Using a gun for protection results in fewer
    injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is
    safer than not resisting at all.
    [3] The myth that "guns are only used for
    killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection
    melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist
    because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think
    to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let
    us examine the other common myths.

    * Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence"

    Even their claim of an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like
    so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated
    that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data.
    Homiciderates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except
    for innercity teens and young adults involved with illicit drug
    trafficking. We havenoticed that, if one subtracts the inner city
    contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in
    Britain and the other paragons ofgun control.[2]

    The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
    violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city,
    poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for
    those withno hope of decent job opportunities.[4]

    * Myth #4 "Guns cause violence"

    Homicide

    For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and,
    despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate
    in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US
    group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence,
    middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 -
    about half of the US average.[6]

    If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the
    alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
    have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
    rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
    control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
    2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian
    gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2,
    California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The
    "guns-cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder.
    Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
    violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.

    Accidents

    National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been
    falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an
    all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths
    occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands
    of innocent children.[8]

    Suicide

    Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase
    in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging,
    leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in
    total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find
    the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically
    correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but
    do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

    * Myth #5 The "Friends and Family fallacy"

    It is common for the public health advocates of gun bans to claim that
    most murders are of "friends and family". The medical literature includes
    many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law
    abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger"[9 ]and "most
    shootingsare not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are
    acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for
    protection."[10]

    Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a
    minority of homicides,[11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and
    domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to
    the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make
    them "friends". Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of
    violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but
    also against their relatives.
    [12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no
    difficultyrecognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic
    is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of
    violence."
    [16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are
    overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence
    inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of
    "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply
    because a gun was present "in the home."

    * Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be
    killed or kill a family member as an intruder"


    To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family
    with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's
    long-discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a
    family member than an intruder."[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax
    dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense
    lobby.

    The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives
    saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property
    protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in
    a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the
    predator.[3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only
    counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a
    thousand-fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only
    measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed
    by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are
    the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by
    deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives
    protected by guns for every life lost to agun.
    [2]

    Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times,"[18] but he
    persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot
    distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like
    finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then
    concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

    Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality,
    alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From
    such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his
    findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was
    interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her
    to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even
    believe his own studies.

    * Myth #7 "The costs of gun violence are high"

    The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is
    approximately $1.5-billion per year[20]- less than 0.2% of America's
    $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun
    violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of
    "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost" - assuming
    that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive
    as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate
    inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs."[20] One recent study
    went so far as to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might
    gossip about gun violence.[21]

    What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who
    strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been
    noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug
    traffickers or their customers.
    [22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide
    "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.
    [23]
    These activecriminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but
    also an averageeconomic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before
    apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24]
    Because theanti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the
    issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent
    "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may
    actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5
    billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns.
    Those annual
    cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from
    guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings
    from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted,
    and property protected by guns.

    Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a
    substantial net benefit to our society.
    Other benefits, such as the
    feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun
    ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research
    that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult
    (whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will
    reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it
    is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by
    jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City,
    Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is
    reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs
    more - not fewer - lives.

    * Myth #8 "Gun control will keep guns off the street' "

    Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug
    trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount
    of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor
    additional gun laws.

    Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their
    proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics
    cannoteffectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a
    country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned
    civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.
    [25]

    Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws,
    good people who already honor the laws of common decency.
    Placing
    further impediments in the path of good citizens will further
    disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good,
    poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.

    If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public
    policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim
    disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

    What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding
    citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection -
    guns.[26,27]

    Brady I and Brady II

    The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential
    felons"[28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in
    the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed
    the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal[29] of the
    "success" of the Brady Law.

    The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other
    jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential"
    felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many
    were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic
    convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to
    license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer
    tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons.[30] In transparent
    "governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the
    Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of
    numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect."[31]

    Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed
    about 6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with
    repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail
    transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by
    Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable
    to identify even one prosecution of those felons.[32 ] In such
    circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to
    no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very
    few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are
    obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non-retail
    sources.[28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II
    suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic
    nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.

    Residential gun dealers

    The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers,
    pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such
    dealers are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is
    contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold
    no guns at all.[33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of
    the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the
    large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy.
    Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three
    guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and
    therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution,
    thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed
    gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does
    not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created.
    Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more
    expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from
    violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the
    politically connected and the affluent.

    Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or
    law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not
    more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real
    source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the
    supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun
    stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on
    targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally
    important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most
    particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career
    alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and
    disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our
    society.

    * Myth #9 "Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"

    Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently
    as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it
    with a better safety record than the police.
    [3] About 11% of police
    shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an
    innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
    person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are
    less likely to be wounded than the police.

    We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the
    simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting
    themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering
    fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.

    "Treat cars like guns"

    Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile
    model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and
    incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or
    registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on
    private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile
    registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered,
    automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses
    are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting
    periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of
    automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated.

    Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns,
    no "arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or
    motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that
    automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused
    by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of
    crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because
    they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph
    speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable
    of three times the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the
    usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many
    as 2.5-million good Americans every year.

    Progressive reform

    Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile
    model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate
    and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and
    training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and
    train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence
    and homicide have fallen.[11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns
    benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance
    who is carrying a concealed weapon.

    Fear mongering and the gun control lobby

    In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to
    self-protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform
    would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family
    arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of
    communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be
    killed[26,27] In Florida, the anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood
    would run in the streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" ---
    but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery,
    or political histrionics. We can examine the data.

    Data, not histrionics

    One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have
    reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves
    outside their homes.[26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for
    every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.[11]
    Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed
    robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10%
    lower.[11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in
    none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact,
    the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens,
    more guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society -
    saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of
    community policing.

    As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent
    person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years
    post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for
    misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with
    any injury whatsoever.[27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed
    that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform, most states
    have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified
    citizens.[27]

    Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the
    observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators
    fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they
    fear apprehension by police[34] or fear our timid and porous criminal
    justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by
    predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens,
    tourists are unarmed.

    Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals
    "if it saves only one lifeI." There have been matched state pair
    analyses, crime trend studies, and California county-by-county
    research[27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent
    adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes
    saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if
    saving lives is truly their motivation.

    The right

    Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail
    to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are
    inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let
    there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an
    individual right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the
    "weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected.
    The intent of
    the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual
    right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal
    government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done
    little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the
    Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became
    politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a
    century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights
    guaranteed to African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and
    bear arms, there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37]
    as well as "natural right"[38] guarantees to self-protection.

    Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme
    Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms,
    thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the
    "collective right only" view[39] (and three of these four are authored or
    co-authored by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby). One would never
    guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual
    misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular
    press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the
    fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively an
    invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of
    which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary
    seems to have had any inkling.

    California and Concealed Weapons

    California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have
    the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of
    murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license
    issuance have the lowest rates of murder.[27]

    It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable
    discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of
    Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of
    that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the
    affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In
    California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even
    though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from
    violence.

    Conclusion

    The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do
    not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police
    cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They
    can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the
    predators.

    There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and
    crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens
    to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives.
    The anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will
    "save only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that
    saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun
    control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.

    Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will
    Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative
    false imagery?[40]

    We beg you. Let Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved
    ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and
    it will save many lives.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    TheSkeptic wrote:
    OC carries the risk that someone less responsible can take the gun away from you. Not everyone is a good LAC, after all. And as far as I've been able to find, there's no correlation between gun ownership and a drop in violent crime. Studies down in that avenue usually end up with an inconclusive result. Is there something I'm missing from your side?

    gogodawgs wrote:
    TheSkeptic wrote:
    That's fine.

    Do you have any examples besides a single incident covered by an article? I mean, personal examples are pretty self-limiting. Have there been studies done on the differing effects between concealed carry and open carry or open carry and no carry at all?
    A) You are a troll.
    If you really don't believe me at this point, I don't know how to convince you. I haven't been irrational, confrontational, nor have I flamed anyone. I've said my peace about this, I guess, so if anyone else still wishes to call me a troll go ahead. Turn the other cheek and all that.


    B)" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    There's been a lot of evolution of the idea in public opinion and civil discourse, but when literally read that amendment clearly applies to those belonging to or expressing a desire to belong to militias. And while it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't say that it must be openly and in public. To clarify: I am not saying that there isn't legal justification for open carry politics. I am only saying that a literal reading of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly support open carry politics.

    T.Jefferson, G. Washington, S. Adams, B. Franklin, P. Henry, P. Revere, J. Adams, J. Smith..............all open carried!
    This is plainly false, American historical figures did not carry their weapons with them everywhere they went. If I'm remembering correctly, Paul Revere didn't even own a rifle.
    Paul Revere served as Commander at Castle Island and was a Lt. Col. in the Massachusets State militia. Members of the militia owned and served with their own arms. Read there own writings (primary documents), they clearly did carry their own arms with them everywhere they went.

    You say that 'a literal reading of the Second Amendment...does not explicitly support open carry politics.'

    Here is the literal definition of each phrase of the Amendment as viewed by scholars on both sides of the issue:

    "A well regulated militia" 1790s literal meaning: There was no national guard, but rather a militia was 'the whole body of the people' or it was 'all able bodied men'. Even under current U.S. code : US Code Title 10,A,1,13,311
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/70embar.pdf
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    TheSkeptic wrote:
    OC carries the risk that someone less responsible can take the gun away from you.
    Then please explain why the police open carry their firearms.

    According to your above logic, wouldn't it then make better sense for the police to stop carrying firearms and start handing them out to criminals?

    After all, they could then be easily taken away from their owners and used against them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    The choice to oc or cc should be up to the individual. I think oc should be kept legal. Once it starts on the legal status of how we carry then it will get to if we can carry. The conceled carry permits do not mean the person is an expert with firearms. The classes are very limited and just go over the basics. I think if you can legal purchase a firearm you should be able to carry it how you want to.

    I may not oc but I do defend your right to.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I carry concealed, and am intrigued by the passion for open carry. I get the argument about open carry normalizing gun ownership, and the political argument about strengthening the 2A constituency. But from a public policy standpoint, why do we want people walking around with guns? There really aren't any stats on whether gun ownership deters crime. (Don't give me John Lott; he's been discredited. The consensus among non-advocate academics, from Kleck on one side to Hemenway on the other, is that concealed carry doesn't appreciably affect crime one way or the other.) Any advantage to open carry, i.e. discouraging crime, is no doubt offset by the disadvantage, i.e. guns readily to hand in a road-rage, domestic abuse, or other ugly situation. So let's call that a wash. Aside from the political utility of open carry, what's the public good in open carry?
    It's an honest question, and I'd appreciate a civilized answer, without a lot of the infantile name-calling that gives firearms enthusiasts a bad name. Thanks.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011

    Post imported post

    Did someone leave the troll gate open again...dammit .

    Getalong little trollies, getalong...Hiya!!!
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  22. #22
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    projection anyone?
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  23. #23
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    shootemup wrote:Sir, with all due respect, your fears are irrational, and you are making baseless assertions about the intent of open carriers. Please see the following url:

    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragi...elfdefense.htm

  24. #24
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    Dude why even respond?
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  25. #25
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    sonofsy wrote:
    Don't give me John Lott; he's been discredited.
    Please cite your reference of discredit.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •