dubya4472
New member
imported post
In Oklahoma we are only the Governor's signature away from having OC legalized in Oklahoma.
A fairly liberal newspaper printed an editorial piece criticizing OC, one of their arguements was "The author of the bill says a criminal is far less likely to attack once he sees a citizen is armed. Under that line of thinking, the criminal will just move down the street to terrorize the first unarmed citizen he sees."
The link to the entire article he wrote is: http://muskogeephoenix.com/editorials/x1036629250/Open-carry-law-a-potentially-deadly-idea
The following is a copy of the letter that I sent to the editor and they published it in the paper. Please read it and let me know what you think.
The open carry bill that has been presented to the Governor is not going to harm Oklahoma, it will only benefit Oklahoma.
This bill does not relax the rules on who can carry a gun, or where a gun can be carried. The only changeis that people who have a valid concealed carry license now have the option of carrying their gun openly, rather than having to have it concealed. There are still many places that you will not be allowed to carry your gun (bars, casinos, etc) and it does not make it easier to get licensed.
This bill is not only about people's right to carry, it is also about public safety. If more law abiding citizens openly carry guns in public then there is less of a chance of crime happening. If a bank robber walks into a bank to rob it and sees someone wearing a gun, the likelihood is that he'll not rob that bank.
In your article you said that if a criminal is going to rob a citizen and the citizen is armed, then the criminal will just wait and terrorize the first unarmed citizen that he sees. Well, isn't that the point?Thearmed citizenpracticed his right to carry and prevented himself from being the victim of a crime.Under your line of thinking should we pass a law to ban home security systems? The reason people have them is to protect their homes from burglary and fire. However, since not everyone has them the burglar is going to go to the first house he sees without an ADT sign and burglarize that house. Not everyone will have the same protections because not everyone is practicing their right to defend their homes. So should everyone have their right to buy a security system taken away, because there is a greater likelihood of a house without a security system being burglarized than a house with a security system?
Oklahoma is only one of 6 states in the United States that does not have some form of open carry allowed. Everytime a state tries to pass an open carry law the anti-gun movement puts out the same propoganda about the nightmare that is to come... but it never happens.
Everyone that I've talked to that currently carries concealed says that they will probably continue to carry concealed, not openly. However, everyone likes to have the freedom to carry in whatever way they'd like. Under current law if a concealed carrier's gun is accidentally exposed in public they can get their license taken away. Under the new law we wouldn't have to worry about that. The public should want that extra protection for the good guys out there who only carry to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. You don't want to take away the rights of the guys who are carrying to protect you. The criminals are going to carry no matter what the law is. The guys who go through the background checks, and the licensing procedures, and pay the fees, those are the good guys. Those are the people who are trying to protect their fellow citizens.
Oklahoma is going to be much safer after this bill passes.
Please let me know if there are any arguments that I could have made that I missed out on. There are several other liberal papers writing similar editorials. I'd like to send the letter to them as well. Hopefully, if nothing else, it will at least open the thinking of the anti-OCers or those on the fence about the issue.
Thanks!
In Oklahoma we are only the Governor's signature away from having OC legalized in Oklahoma.
A fairly liberal newspaper printed an editorial piece criticizing OC, one of their arguements was "The author of the bill says a criminal is far less likely to attack once he sees a citizen is armed. Under that line of thinking, the criminal will just move down the street to terrorize the first unarmed citizen he sees."
The link to the entire article he wrote is: http://muskogeephoenix.com/editorials/x1036629250/Open-carry-law-a-potentially-deadly-idea
The following is a copy of the letter that I sent to the editor and they published it in the paper. Please read it and let me know what you think.
The open carry bill that has been presented to the Governor is not going to harm Oklahoma, it will only benefit Oklahoma.
This bill does not relax the rules on who can carry a gun, or where a gun can be carried. The only changeis that people who have a valid concealed carry license now have the option of carrying their gun openly, rather than having to have it concealed. There are still many places that you will not be allowed to carry your gun (bars, casinos, etc) and it does not make it easier to get licensed.
This bill is not only about people's right to carry, it is also about public safety. If more law abiding citizens openly carry guns in public then there is less of a chance of crime happening. If a bank robber walks into a bank to rob it and sees someone wearing a gun, the likelihood is that he'll not rob that bank.
In your article you said that if a criminal is going to rob a citizen and the citizen is armed, then the criminal will just wait and terrorize the first unarmed citizen that he sees. Well, isn't that the point?Thearmed citizenpracticed his right to carry and prevented himself from being the victim of a crime.Under your line of thinking should we pass a law to ban home security systems? The reason people have them is to protect their homes from burglary and fire. However, since not everyone has them the burglar is going to go to the first house he sees without an ADT sign and burglarize that house. Not everyone will have the same protections because not everyone is practicing their right to defend their homes. So should everyone have their right to buy a security system taken away, because there is a greater likelihood of a house without a security system being burglarized than a house with a security system?
Oklahoma is only one of 6 states in the United States that does not have some form of open carry allowed. Everytime a state tries to pass an open carry law the anti-gun movement puts out the same propoganda about the nightmare that is to come... but it never happens.
Everyone that I've talked to that currently carries concealed says that they will probably continue to carry concealed, not openly. However, everyone likes to have the freedom to carry in whatever way they'd like. Under current law if a concealed carrier's gun is accidentally exposed in public they can get their license taken away. Under the new law we wouldn't have to worry about that. The public should want that extra protection for the good guys out there who only carry to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. You don't want to take away the rights of the guys who are carrying to protect you. The criminals are going to carry no matter what the law is. The guys who go through the background checks, and the licensing procedures, and pay the fees, those are the good guys. Those are the people who are trying to protect their fellow citizens.
Oklahoma is going to be much safer after this bill passes.
Please let me know if there are any arguments that I could have made that I missed out on. There are several other liberal papers writing similar editorials. I'd like to send the letter to them as well. Hopefully, if nothing else, it will at least open the thinking of the anti-OCers or those on the fence about the issue.
Thanks!
