SteyrAUG
Regular Member
So what would actually happen if next Monday any law abiding citizen could legally, openly carry a firearm for any reason without need of a permit, license or stated reason for doing so?
Not very long ago, depending upon how you view time, that was simply the way things were most places. And in a few, that is how it is now.
As with virtually everything there is capacity for good and bad.
Give some people money and they will buy drugs, gamble and engage in other various activities which will destroy their lives and that of others. Others will use money to pay bills, buy food and otherwise provide for themselves and those who depend upon them.
Give some people freedom and they will use that freedom to attempt to restrict the freedoms of others or otherwise degrade the quality of life of their fellow citizens. Others will simply use those same freedoms to lead more productive, enjoyable lives.
With virtually everything there will always be those who do bad things and can make even essentially good things like freedom and liberty come at a cost. That we allow the former to further restrict the latter as a result is simply one more additional cost that we endure because such people exist.
Otherwise we could board airplanes with the .44 magnum we intend to use on our hunting trip in the carry on right next to the powerful narcotics we will be dropping off at our grandmothers house, which her doctor advised her to take, because drug prices happen to be cheaper in our state than hers. Sadly due to that former group of people, such a scenario now seems absurd.
It is common exercise of people who oppose unrestricted carry to say "Imagine all of the bad, dangerous drivers on the road that you encounter every day...now imagine they all have guns." And while there is some merit to that analogy, my question is IF they are so dangerous...why do we let them keep their cars and let them drive? These people are far more likely to kill us in traffic and cars let them come into contact with far more people than a gun. One dumbass move on the interstate can kill and injure dozens of people. And a person can probably kill more people deliberately with a car than a gun, but please don't mention that on the national news...we have enough problems.
So back to what if...what would actually happen.
Well in a lot of places...nothing. Same thing that happened when we allowed greater carry freedoms with various permits or licenses. Some people create new problems because they have guns, other people prevent more problems because they have guns. It's the usual give and take and so far it seems the good far outweighs the bad. But legal carry in North Carolina may not produce the same result in Oakland, California.
So what of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc? What if?
Well a few things would change. Criminals would STILL have the guns they have right now. And those criminals who have not YET been arrested could legally carry guns. The reality of course is if they are criminals (even if they haven't been arrested yet) and intent upon carrying a gun, they will do it regardless of laws because they are criminals. The difference is right now they don't do it openly so you have to check to see if they are actually armed.
Really only two things are going to actually change. Violent "shoot em up" high crime areas will no longer be able to pretend they are anything else and the law abiding citizens who happen to live there will be forced to recognize those areas for what they actually are, and of course they will now have the freedom to arms themselves and shoot back according to local laws regarding personal defense.
But for middle America, once the novelty has worn off, carrying a gun will be much like carrying a laptop computer, cell phone, your keys, wallet and all the other things you bring with you as needed. My dad used to bring a .45 on a pistol belt when he went camping for example.
Some will point out that open carry makes you a target for criminals who will want your guns. This is of course true, but the same is true of the guns in your home. Criminals are also willing to target and kill you for your nice watch, car, cell phone, shoes, jacket, $10 in your pocket and a host of other things. Best to keep that in mind but you can probably save your life more effectively with the gun on your hip than the watch on your wrist. And honestly the average criminal can get a lot more from your Rolex or Omega than your Glock.
Ideally, law abiding citizens would be free to conceal weapons as well as carry them openly so that one my custom tailor their perceived personal security needs to their environment. But it is already asking a LOT for everyone to legally strap on or sling a firearm, being able to hide it without proving yourself worthy is more freedom (and associated risk) than the citizens of most states are willing to consider. In many places they aren't even crazy about the people who have been cleared and licensed to do such things.
So again, what would really happen?
Bad places would be bad, and in places where decent, law abiding people outnumber the bad, pretty much nothing except for a few more guys creating problems and a larger number of people preventing most problems from happening.
And with the bad places clearly recognized "perhaps" we could then focus solely on the bad people who MAKE those places bad to try and fix it. After all there is nothing specific about the architecture of Chicago that makes it dangerous and corrupt, and it isn't a result of the climate. A lot of it has to do with the good people who live there being powerless to prevent the bad people from doing the things they do.
The problem of course is that we'd have to provide a huge number of people with a great deal of freedom and liberty.
Not very long ago, depending upon how you view time, that was simply the way things were most places. And in a few, that is how it is now.
As with virtually everything there is capacity for good and bad.
Give some people money and they will buy drugs, gamble and engage in other various activities which will destroy their lives and that of others. Others will use money to pay bills, buy food and otherwise provide for themselves and those who depend upon them.
Give some people freedom and they will use that freedom to attempt to restrict the freedoms of others or otherwise degrade the quality of life of their fellow citizens. Others will simply use those same freedoms to lead more productive, enjoyable lives.
With virtually everything there will always be those who do bad things and can make even essentially good things like freedom and liberty come at a cost. That we allow the former to further restrict the latter as a result is simply one more additional cost that we endure because such people exist.
Otherwise we could board airplanes with the .44 magnum we intend to use on our hunting trip in the carry on right next to the powerful narcotics we will be dropping off at our grandmothers house, which her doctor advised her to take, because drug prices happen to be cheaper in our state than hers. Sadly due to that former group of people, such a scenario now seems absurd.
It is common exercise of people who oppose unrestricted carry to say "Imagine all of the bad, dangerous drivers on the road that you encounter every day...now imagine they all have guns." And while there is some merit to that analogy, my question is IF they are so dangerous...why do we let them keep their cars and let them drive? These people are far more likely to kill us in traffic and cars let them come into contact with far more people than a gun. One dumbass move on the interstate can kill and injure dozens of people. And a person can probably kill more people deliberately with a car than a gun, but please don't mention that on the national news...we have enough problems.
So back to what if...what would actually happen.
Well in a lot of places...nothing. Same thing that happened when we allowed greater carry freedoms with various permits or licenses. Some people create new problems because they have guns, other people prevent more problems because they have guns. It's the usual give and take and so far it seems the good far outweighs the bad. But legal carry in North Carolina may not produce the same result in Oakland, California.
So what of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc? What if?
Well a few things would change. Criminals would STILL have the guns they have right now. And those criminals who have not YET been arrested could legally carry guns. The reality of course is if they are criminals (even if they haven't been arrested yet) and intent upon carrying a gun, they will do it regardless of laws because they are criminals. The difference is right now they don't do it openly so you have to check to see if they are actually armed.
Really only two things are going to actually change. Violent "shoot em up" high crime areas will no longer be able to pretend they are anything else and the law abiding citizens who happen to live there will be forced to recognize those areas for what they actually are, and of course they will now have the freedom to arms themselves and shoot back according to local laws regarding personal defense.
But for middle America, once the novelty has worn off, carrying a gun will be much like carrying a laptop computer, cell phone, your keys, wallet and all the other things you bring with you as needed. My dad used to bring a .45 on a pistol belt when he went camping for example.
Some will point out that open carry makes you a target for criminals who will want your guns. This is of course true, but the same is true of the guns in your home. Criminals are also willing to target and kill you for your nice watch, car, cell phone, shoes, jacket, $10 in your pocket and a host of other things. Best to keep that in mind but you can probably save your life more effectively with the gun on your hip than the watch on your wrist. And honestly the average criminal can get a lot more from your Rolex or Omega than your Glock.
Ideally, law abiding citizens would be free to conceal weapons as well as carry them openly so that one my custom tailor their perceived personal security needs to their environment. But it is already asking a LOT for everyone to legally strap on or sling a firearm, being able to hide it without proving yourself worthy is more freedom (and associated risk) than the citizens of most states are willing to consider. In many places they aren't even crazy about the people who have been cleared and licensed to do such things.
So again, what would really happen?
Bad places would be bad, and in places where decent, law abiding people outnumber the bad, pretty much nothing except for a few more guys creating problems and a larger number of people preventing most problems from happening.
And with the bad places clearly recognized "perhaps" we could then focus solely on the bad people who MAKE those places bad to try and fix it. After all there is nothing specific about the architecture of Chicago that makes it dangerous and corrupt, and it isn't a result of the climate. A lot of it has to do with the good people who live there being powerless to prevent the bad people from doing the things they do.
The problem of course is that we'd have to provide a huge number of people with a great deal of freedom and liberty.
