Your Reasons

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?

imported post

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atla...8-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-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:lol:

imported post

Nice fielding NY2AZ.

Let's let this thread die a trolls death.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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!

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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)

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?

Click to expand...

A)  You are a troll.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

BANG :what:. No closed season on trolls.:cuss:

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

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.

imported post

Because I can!

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.

Click to expand...

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" [align=left]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.[/align]

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?

Click to expand...

A) You are a troll.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

imported post

TheSkeptic wrote:

OC carries the risk that someone less responsible can take the gun away from you.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.