General Comment

imported post

Hello,

I just heard about your organization while reading about the Starbucks protest/stunt. While reading the story and seeing the photo of the firearm strapped to a man's belt, I immediately started associating your movement with some of the sour political discourse and felt that this group was made of political extremists.

I decided to seek out your web site to see what your discussions looked like first hand to confirm my snap judgment only to find that my initial impression of your movement was totally off base.

I still have some reservations about your cause though. I would like to see some unbiased studies that document what happens in an American town with a significant crime rate that suddenly adopts an open carry policy. I would like empirical evidence to see, in our culture, if violent crime would go up or down, if property crimes would go up or down, and if having a gun on your hip makes you more likely to use it during road rage or any of the other day to day fights and conflicts people get into when emotionally compromised.

In the mean time, I'll try to keep an open mind about the idea. I really just wanted to pop in and let you know how impressed I am that you seem to have the discipline to keep this discussion calm and rational while separating this issue from the rest of the politics that is dividing our nation, regardless of where you may individually stand on those issues.

I feel proud that there is still a corner of the internet where people can have a rational discussion about an issue. Congratulations!

imported post

Check out Kennesaw, GA. A few years ago this town decided that every adult male who legally could should own a handgun, and helped them to obtain them. The crime rate went down drastically.

Check out the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for the last year it was published. It points out that while sales of defensive weapons went up during the months after Obama was elected, the overall crime rate went down.

Check out the stats for Washington DC after the Heller decision of 2008. The violent crime rate went down by nearly 25%.


There are others, but these should get you started.

imported post

Go to www.GunFacts.info

This is a very good source for facts about gun ownership .

imported post

ngeorge9757 wrote:

Hello,

I just heard about your organization while reading about the Starbucks protest/stunt. While reading the story and seeing the photo of the firearm strapped to a man's belt, I immediately started associating your movement with some of the sour political discourse and felt that this group was made of political extremists.

I decided to seek out your web site to see what your discussions looked like first hand to confirm my snap judgment only to find that my initial impression of your movement was totally off base.

I still have some reservations about your cause though. I would like to see some unbiased studies that document what happens in an American town with a significant crime rate that suddenly adopts an open carry policy. I would like empirical evidence to see, in our culture, if violent crime would go up or down, if property crimes would go up or down, and if having a gun on your hip makes you more likely to use it during road rage or any of the other day to day fights and conflicts people get into when emotionally compromised.

In the mean time, I'll try to keep an open mind about the idea. I really just wanted to pop in and let you know how impressed I am that you seem to have the discipline to keep this discussion calm and rational while separating this issue from the rest of the politics that is dividing our nation, regardless of where you may individually stand on those issues.

I feel proud that there is still a corner of the internet where people can have a rational discussion about an issue. Congratulations!

Click to expand...

Would it be a tough decision to determine if you should drive the 4wheel drive vehicle or the motorcyclewhen you look out the window in the morning and there's 15 inches of snow on the ground ? and I'm not trying to be a wise ass,I'm just inquiring about you ability to asess being prepared.

imported post

Carnivore,


Thanks for trying to determining I am am capable of making a decision with your highly accurate snow vehicle choice test, or as you call it, "you ability". If your mission was to measure my intelligence in a totally accurate and non-condescending way, all I can say is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. So totally not a "wise ass" thing to say.

Let me clarify that I am not here to argue against anyone's position on open carrying, but this issue is little more socially complex than choosing to use a 4x4 on a snowy day. I chose to consider only empirical data because I know this is a complex issue that may have more ramifications than someone that has already a position is willing to acknowledge.

It is not a forgone conclusion that open carrying would prevent enough violent crimes to outweigh the flood of crimes of passion that are sure to follow.

I think the Brady people have some valid concerns, and so do you folks, but I will not side with either until I have looked at compelling evidence to back up all the opinions. I pray that other Americans take the issue just as seriously.

Earlier, I was ready to write off this whole movement as a bunch of extremists, then after looking around, I noticed that the moderators have done a good job at policing it's ranks to keep the extremists from taking over their message, and I was impressed. It will not do them any favors if you go out of your way to negate any positive feelings from people curious about this cause by insinuating that they are some sort of imbecile if they are not already sold on your group's cause.

You may not have intended to come off as an ass with your little IQ test there, but you did. I think you kind of knew it too.

Anyhow, I just wanted to compliment the organizers for creating an environment that is tolerable for people that do not have fixed views about gun control, and vote.

imported post

ngeorge9757 wrote:

I still have some reservations about your cause though. I would like to see some unbiased studies that document what happens in an American town with a significant crime rate that suddenly adopts an open carry policy. I would like empirical evidence to see, in our culture, if violent crime would go up or down, if property crimes would go up or down, and if having a gun on your hip makes you more likely to use it during road rage or any of the other day to day fights and conflicts people get into when emotionally compromised.

In the mean time, I'll try to keep an open mind about the idea.

Click to expand...

Here is the very best empirical evidence! (I pray that "empirical evidence" is used advisedly, knowingly and with understanding.)

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

by John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998) ISBN: 0-226-49363-6

Dr. Lott maintains a blogging website, http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/ where he frequently responds to posted questions and comments.

He also maintains an 'academic' site, http://www.johnlott.org/ with

[size="+1"]Instructions for Obtaining John R. Lott's Raw Data[/size]
Most of this data involves STATA 7.0 data sets. The reason for using this is that the county level data involves a much larger set of control variables than can readily be handled by other statistical packages. The data sets can be obtained by clicking on the following links which will take you to the download page:...

This page also lists the various controversies and criticisms that his work has raised.

imported post

ngeorge9757 wrote:

I still have some reservations about your cause though. I would like to see some unbiased studies that document what happens in an American town with a significant crime rate that suddenly adopts an open carry policy. I would like empirical evidence to see, in our culture, if violent crime would go up or down, if property crimes would go up or down, and if having a gun on your hip makes you more likely to use it during road rage or any of the other day to day fights and conflicts people get into when emotionally compromised.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/

This is most recently. Not exactly a study, but after Heller it seems that the Washington DC crime rate went down rather sharply.

If you search, there's a lot more info on that. This isn't specific to open carry of course. If that's what you are looking for, I'm not sure there are many studies focusing just on that mode of carry as a crime deterrent.

imported post

The whole problem with the brady campaign is that they are assuming that any laws they can possibly create a criminal is going to follow.

Any new stricter law that is enacted is only going to affect the law abiding citizen not the criminals.

Gun Purchase law requirements,
Gun Free Zones..... These are a criminals gold mine.
Waiting Periods
Magazine Capacity restrictions
Full Autos restrictions

A criminal laughs at all this! In the end the brady campaign just makes the life of a criminal easier.

There is only one solution for gun control and that would be to remove ALL guns from EVERYONE, and we all know that will never happen.

imported post

Empiricism dictates that we must question all our assumptions. Note: OUR assumptions.
ngeorge9757 wrote:

It is not a forgone conclusion that open carrying would prevent enough violent crimes to outweigh the flood of crimes of passion that are sure to follow.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to cut you down at all. Please only assume the best in my intentions as they are are indeed benevolent.
Try to evaluate where you, and most people, got the notion that more people carrying handguns will inevitably result in crimes of passion.
Remember that you will never see a news report claiming:
a) John Smith died today, he was 98. While he carried a handgun every day since he was 21, surprisingly he never shot anyone.
b) Jane Doe was confronted by a man with a knife near her home and while seeming to reach for her wallet to hand to him, she drew a gun and he ran. No shots were fired.
The saying goes: "If it bleeds, it leads." Crimes of passion and mayhem are truly exceptional incidents. People do not consume news about the un-exceptional.

Always consider that literally thousands of Americans have been carrying handguns every day for hundreds of years. Keep that in mind when evaluating the weight of the crimes of passion reported in the news. Evaluate this ratio between the two coldly and mathematically and you should find that no wide-ranging problem exists.

imported post

^^
I've never understood how the "crimes of passion" could ever be a valid argument either. Crimes of passion are assuredly not to follow, not any more than they already exist. It's a non issue.

Crimes of passion are committed every day with or without access to firearms. When they banned pistols in the U.K. people started killing each other with Katana's. Now they're banned. Next on the list is normal knifes, forks, and spoons.

Why is it a non issue? Because, there is plenty of evidence that this pretty much NEVER happens. With all the states that allow concealed carry (48 of them), how many "crimes of passion" are there involving the CCW holders? What's the difference between concealing and open carrying from the perspective of a "crime of passion"? Absolutely none, unless some hateful anti kills an open carrier just because he can see the object of his unwarranted fear and hatred.

imported post

Personally, I think the best evidence is Australia. Look up their crime statistics. Several years ago the government there outlawed guns, and collected "all" the guns in the country via a buyback. Violent crime rates have gone up considerably since, as well as some other crimes. Here's a link which is fairly comprehensive.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

imported post

You know,
I got to thinking that we should have a sticky with all the information in it such as Lott's studies and the like. Something we can just shoot a link to so that people with these questions can read to their hearts desire. Maybe after this thread is over we can consolidate all the info here into a sticky thread that can continually be added to when new information is available.

imported post

NGeorge:

What if you came here, and we were a bunch of extremists? What if you came here and somehow we were all complete jerks, "wise-asses" etc.

Would this change our rights, your rights under the US Constitution?

Let's say I could prove tomorrow that if we got rid of the "Freedom of Religion" in this Country, and we all converted to Judiasm or Islam, that this would be a more peaceful country. Would you allow your freedoms to be infringed because of that?

We should always be scared when any law maker or any group wants to make laws that infringe of our rights because of statistics or beliefs.

The BradyCampaign says "Remove guns from Starbucks, it makes us uncomfortable." They say "Remove guns from the Streets, we think it causes more violence."

What if they were right? Do we live in a Country where being "right" means that we should have less civil liberties.

I'm actually Zen Buddhist, and a pacifist. I can prove to you, without a doubt, that daily mediation is better for your health. However, do I have a right tomorrow to make a law forcing everyone to meditate daily?

BrassMagnet: What if there are studies that show that in some circumstances guns cause more violence? Does it matter?

Some thoughts,
Pace


ngeorge9757 wrote:

Carnivore,


Thanks for trying to determining I am am capable of making a decision with your highly accurate snow vehicle choice test, or as you call it, "you ability". If your mission was to measure my intelligence in a totally accurate and non-condescending way, all I can say is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. So totally not a "wise ass" thing to say.

Let me clarify that I am not here to argue against anyone's position on open carrying, but this issue is little more socially complex than choosing to use a 4x4 on a snowy day. I chose to consider only empirical data because I know this is a complex issue that may have more ramifications than someone that has already a position is willing to acknowledge.

It is not a forgone conclusion that open carrying would prevent enough violent crimes to outweigh the flood of crimes of passion that are sure to follow.

I think the Brady people have some valid concerns, and so do you folks, but I will not side with either until I have looked at compelling evidence to back up all the opinions. I pray that other Americans take the issue just as seriously.

Earlier, I was ready to write off this whole movement as a bunch of extremists, then after looking around, I noticed that the moderators have done a good job at policing it's ranks to keep the extremists from taking over their message, and I was impressed. It will not do them any favors if you go out of your way to negate any positive feelings from people curious about this cause by insinuating that they are some sort of imbecile if they are not already sold on your group's cause.

You may not have intended to come off as an ass with your little IQ test there, but you did. I think you kind of knew it too.

Anyhow, I just wanted to compliment the organizers for creating an environment that is tolerable for people that do not have fixed views about gun control, and vote.

Click to expand...

imported post

Pace wrote:

BrassMagnet: What if there are studies that show that in some circumstances guns cause more violence? Does it matter?

Some thoughts,
Pace

Click to expand...

Not to you or I; I think. The court of public opinion varies on the matter I'm sure.

Freedom is scary, it requires trusting your fellow citizens to make the right decisions, just like driving requires trusting your fellow drivers not to swerve into your lane. Freedom isn't easy, just like drowning is easier than swimming.

imported post

We have to slowly "train" the public to understand freedom means freedom, doesn't mean "being comfortable" or even being "happy" about other people's choices.

What is allowed in this country often has nothing to do with morality, ethics, beliefs. It has to do with law of the land. That's why I ignore the ethical part of the debate on OpenCarry.

imported post

Pace wrote:

We have to slowly "train" the public to understand freedom means freedom, doesn't mean "being comfortable" or even being "happy" about other people's choices.

What is allowed in this country often has nothing to do with morality, ethics, beliefs. It has to do with law of the land. That's why I ignore the ethical part of the debate on OpenCarry.

Click to expand...

Your not getting any argument on the matter out of me. Big +1 on training the public. Train them on all of their rights and why more rights=good thing.

imported post

There are a lot of good leads here and I see I have a lot of reading to do now.

Thank you very much for that.

Just to make sure you know what I mean by crimes of passion, let's look at a recent event posted all over the internet.

You probably have seen this fight on a bus between a street thug and the "Epic beard man"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OnhnvczTk

Fist fights and heated arguments are not uncommon. this type of thing happens all the time in every city. But, how would this fight turn out if one or both sides were armed?

Does a man have the presence of mind to take a beating without drawing down on his opponent? After all, this type of incident may not merit the threat of lethal force. Or, suppose one side did draw a weapon to stop the fight. If the other side was armed, they might feel justified in drawing at that moment, having a gun aimed at them. At that point, both sides would have a real and credible lethal threat that they can use to justify lethal force.

I can see this sort of thing happening all the time, and all it takes is someone to upholster a weapon in response to a lesser threat to justify a lethal escalation. So I wonder who actually has the presence of mind to take a beating without prematurely escalating the force?

People are people, so I can imagine this type of thing happening quite a bit, but I can only guess at the frequency.

Also, I know that openly carrying weapons does not protect life in all situations. For example, we have all seen the recent uptic in the execution of police officers. In one recent incident at Lakewood, Washington, four police officers were suprised and gunned down by a single man who could visually see which people in the room were armed and which were not. All he needed was a pair of eyes, a gun, and the element of suprise. These things happen, but again the question is of freqency. This is why I have asked about scientifically framed studies that compair and tabulate all the scenarios and get at the true net result. I thank you for giving me material to read.

Pace-

You asked how I would feel if things were different here. I would flat out resist this type of movement if the base was irrational and emotionally unstable. Fair or not, this is definitely the first hurdle in gaining acceptance from the undecided. We don't need a bunch of volatile people walking around with loaded guns and chips on their shoulders. The demeanor here lends a lot of credibility to opencarry.org.

Personally, I am not a constitutional purist. I do not believe in our rights as an absolute, but that each right should be balanced according to a debatable level of safety, and to make sure one person's rights do not trample over another person's rights. For example, we have limits on the right of free speech. I can not slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.. etc.

If I thought that a right did more harm than good, then I would seek to repeal that right. We have made similar changes before to ensure that people are not treated as property and to ensure a woman's right to vote. If open carry rights turned our communities into the wild west, I, and other people would seek codified limits on the second amendment. Absolute freedom is anarchy, and that would be a society I would not want to live in. So, obviously, other people are going to have different opinions on that, but to answer your question, I do not see our constitution as a holy document that cannot be updated. In my opinion, each right needs some sort of limit.

imported post

I have a feeling that there would have been no fight at all on that bus if either of them were carrying a firearm. An armed society is a polite society.

imported post

ngeorge9757 wrote:

There are a lot of good leads here and I see I have a lot of reading to do now.

Thank you very much for that.

Just to make sure you know what I mean by crimes of passion, let's look at a recent event posted all over the internet.

You probably have seen this fight on a bus between a street thug and the "Epic beard man"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OnhnvczTk

Fist fights and heated arguments are not uncommon. this type of thing happens all the time in every city. But, how would this fight turn out if one or both sides were armed?

Does a man have the presence of mind to take a beating without drawing down on his opponent? After all, this type of incident may not merit the threat of lethal force. Or, suppose one side did draw a weapon to stop the fight. If the other side was armed, they might feel justified in drawing at that moment, having a gun aimed at them. At that point, both sides would have a real and credible lethal threat that they can use to justify lethal force.

I can see this sort of thing happening all the time, and all it takes is someone to upholster a weapon in response to a lesser threat to justify a lethal escalation. So I wonder who actually has the presence of mind to take a beating without prematurely escalating the force?

People are people, so I can imagine this type of thing happening quite a bit, but I can only guess at the frequency.

You only have to look at the 48 states that currently allow concealed carry as proof that this is not true at all. If it were true it would be happening; and it isn't. The mode of carry (open vs. concealed) has no effect on this scenario, only the fact that the weapons are there.

Personally, I am not a constitutional purist. I do not believe in our rights as an absolute, but that each right should be balanced according to a debatable level of safety, and to make sure one person's rights do not trample over another person's rights. For example, we have limits on the right of free speech. I can not slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.. etc.

Click to expand...

Ah, but you DO have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater; however, there are consequences to your actions. I just posted this in another thread but I'll repost it here. I appologize if not all of it is for the issue at hand, but I'm too lazy to change it right now.

By allowing the state to require us to get permits and such for guns it changes it from a right into a privilege. This is called "prior restraint". out of the entire bill of rights guess what prior restraint is applied to?

If prior restraint was applied to the first amendment you would need a permit to ungag yourself before talking just because you could yell "fire" in a crowded theater. A permit to buy a pen because it could be used to write something inflammatory.

You don't need a drivers license to buy a car. But you could certainly buy one and run someone down with it. Maybe we should require a permit to buy a car?

It's not your right or mine to tell people what they can and can not do, but if they do something that tramples on our rights there are consequences to their actions. With each right comes a corresponding responsibility. Here's where the laws come in. Guess what happens when someone shirks their responsibility while exercising a right; or tramples on yours? They go to jail.

There's no need for laws banning or limiting your mouth, a pen, a car, or a gun; just laws saying what you can't do with them. That's certainly not anarchy; that's a free society.

imported post

NGeorge: The issue with what you just said, is that in many times in our Country, people felt this way that their viewpoints based on certain moralities. There are people in this Country who feel that Christianity should be a State Religion because of moral reasons, and could make a great point on how it would be a 'safer' country because of that.

The theory that the right of the individual should be weighed against the public interest can only be applied for specific laws, but not for rights in the Constitution.

The idea that "yelling fire" is always a fallacy based on misconception. Free Speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, it means you can express your opinion and belief about something without government interference based on that opinion. It does not relieve you of the consequences of your actions however.

Similarly, the Right to Bear Arms does not mean that you can point and shoot a gun at anyone you want.

The other fallacy you have is that "fear" that everyone is going to get guns and then be violent with them. This is commonly used and personally I find offensive, and a little on the elitist side. That somehow the average American is so violent, that if we all are able to get guns, we are all going to get them, use them and then shoot people. It goes back to the debate of the function of government. Is our government here to be Daddy or Mommy, or to provide basic services?





ngeorge9757 wrote:

If I thought that a right did more harm than good, then I would seek to repeal that right. We have made similar changes before to ensure that people are not treated as property and to ensure a woman's right to vote. If open carry rights turned our communities into the wild west, I, and other people would seek codified limits on the second amendment. Absolute freedom is anarchy, and that would be a society I would not want to live in. So, obviously, other people are going to have different opinions on that, but to answer your question, I do not see our constitution as a holy document that cannot be updated. In my opinion, each right needs some sort of limit.

Click to expand...