Open Carry

[Monophobia]

Well, yesterday a group of people walked around my neighborhood boasting high-powered weapons (AR 15's) and spitting out racial slurs. (link'd)

They were charged with aggravated menacing, but other than that, they had the full right to carry such high-powered weapons around on their backs for everyone in our area to see. The fact that they had those weapons made people who disagreed with their racial comments afraid to say anything to them.

Well, onto the discussion...do you agree or disagree with open-carry rights? Why or why not? Do you think these people should face a fine and jail-time?

 

[Livewire]

Great, in my state.

Sorry, but public safety trumps the NRA-fueled warped interpretations of the second amendment. This isn't colonial Virginia, we don't need armed militias ready to mobilize at the drop of a hat to fight the redcoats. We're a little past that old line of thinking. And people wonder why we have an ugly obsession with guns and macho/gun-toting culture - we have teenagers walking around with AR-15's. I'm as disturbed as I am embarrassed, really.

 

[Sir Codin]

I'm not disturbed, Lance, I see that as a good thing. The gun-carrying, I mean, not the racial slurs, those can burn in hell.

Puts the fear of God into the government and would-be criminals looking to mug others. It's like Russian Roulette. Would you rob someone who looks like they have a gun? Probably, but you'd at least think twice.

 

[Monophobia]

I'm not disturbed, Lance, I see that as a good thing. The gun-carrying, I mean, not the racial slurs, those can burn in hell.

Puts the fear of God into the government and would-be criminals looking to mug others. It's like Russian Roulette. Would you rob someone who looks like they have a gun? Probably, but you'd at least think twice.

It also puts fear into children who see people walking around with large guns like it's nothing. Kids shouldn't have to look at that. I'm all for concealed weaponry, but to boast it in front of everyone, especially people who are sensitive to that sort of thing, isn't really anything to be happy about.

I certainly wouldn't go up to anyone carrying an AR 15, talk to them, or even be in the same area as them. I wouldn't feel safe at all, especially when people are liable to go crazy with the power of being able to do something like carry around a gun for all to see. Goes straight to their heads.

 

[Livewire]

I'm not disturbed, Lance, I see that as a good thing. The gun-carrying, I mean, not the racial slurs, those can burn in hell.

Puts the fear of God into the government and would-be criminals looking to mug others. It's like Russian Roulette. Would you rob someone who looks like they have a gun? Probably, but you'd at least think twice.

Idiotic teenagers who have no business carrying a firearm like that down the street won't put the fear of god into anybody, let alone the imaginary criminals they're going to thwart with their guns. It's a stunt performed by the exact opposite people you'd trust with a deadly weapon, lol.

 

[Sir Codin]

Idiotic teenagers who have no business carrying a firearm like that down the street won't put the fear of god into anybody, let alone the imaginary criminals they're going to thwart with their guns. It's a stunt performed by the exact opposite people you'd trust with a deadly weapon, lol.

Do you...oh, I don't know...not want anyone to have guns except government?

Just come out and say it, because that's the impression I'm always getting whenever topics like this come up. At least then I'd know we both will never have any common ground on any issue like this whatsoever.

 

[Livewire]

Do you...oh, I don't know...not want anyone to have guns except government?

Just come out and say it, because that's the impression I'm always getting whenever topics like this come up. At least then I'd know we both will never have any common ground on any issue like this whatsoever.

Right, because then that way the government can enslave us all at the drop of a tinfoil hat.

Not sure how you equated "racist teenagers who don't know what they're doing" with "everyone". You prove yourself sufficient, mentally, emotionally, financially, then sure, you can own a fire arm if you so choose. Problem is, a very good number of the people that do own them prooooobably shouldn't. Like these kids. Hence the need for closing loopholes, background checks, etc.

 

[£]

America baffles me, but that's nothing new. I've not seen guns as anything but tools for inflicting severe harm/death upon other people. Over here, the Dunblane massacre was pretty much a kick up the rear for us to get our act together when it comes to gun laws. Over in America, it seems people are a lot more apathetic towards the prospect of having their children shot at and have merely accepted that it is "normal" to own a tool designed to kill at range and sometimes in numbers as a standard household thing. Or something you even leave you house with! "House keys, wallet, phone... gun." It's a scary thought to me. The US clings desperately to an amendment which fit a society 225 years ago, where slavery was also "totally okay like." It took them nearly 100 years to figure out that it wasn't "totally okay like", but they're finding the whole "owning semi-automatic guns not being fitting for a modern society" bit a little harder to get their head around. (Though they did figure out that they should probably halt the circulation of them. Small mercies.)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Some interesting stats that might offer up some food for thought when it comes to the culture I've lived in as opposed to the American one; 7 years on from the analysis, but there's not been any major changes to either the UK or the US in terms of those with guns having them confiscated, or those without guns having easy access to them in the UK, and so this data is reasonably reliable for comparison between the England/Wales (I'm going to exclude Northern Ireland despite it being advantageous to my case, and Scotland lacks any gun based homicide figures, probably due to a lack of them), and the US.

Picking out the stats of importance for comparison between our RELATIVELY gun-lacking country:

England and Wales have had 44 homicides with guns, 6.6% of all of them. Total homicides are therefore approximately 667. Homicides without guns are therefore approximately 623.

The US has had 9,146 homicides with guns, and that makes up 60% of all of them. Total homicides are therefore approximately 15243. Homicides without guns are therefore approximately 6097.

At the time this survey was carried out, the population of the US was about 300,000,000, and the population of England/Wales was 54,000,000. It would be fair to say we'd therefore expect 6 times more homicides in the US compared to England/Wales, assuming that the distribution of people who would commit such acts are equally split.

Thus, for comparison I'll scale all the England/Wales homicides up by a factor of six just for more direct comparisons.

Gun based homicide:
E/W: 44 x 6 = 264.
US: 9164.

Conclusion? More guns obviously result in more homicides by gun per person. Pretty obvious.

Total Homicides:
E/W: 667 x 6 = 4002
US: 15243

Conclusion? More homicides take place in the US per head. Nearly four times as many!

Non-gun based homicides:
E/W: 623 x 6 = 3738
US: 6097

Take out the killing machines, and the numbers are quite interesting. The US is still more murderous by nature, but the difference is only an additional 63% for the US now. Could we conclude that less guns in circulation would also result in a less hostile society? I don't know.

The whole "BUT THE GOVERNMENT WILL OVERRUN US Y'ALL" is a flawed argument in this case; it's a matter of ensuring we have a fair police force that is moderated by the likes of a global watchdog. The sort of force that would prevent a corrupt government taking hold and all~

tl;dr: I'm not a fan of dangerous weapons, whatsoever.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I live in Australia, which has very tight guns laws. The first and last time I saw a gun was when I was in Papua New Guinea - which was being carried by a police officer.

I went to the U.S.A. 3 years ago during my PhD. This may seem absurd to those who live there, but I felt frightened the whole time because I knew anyone could have a gun. I am normally a polite person, but I was extra polite to every person I interacted with (including someone who approached me wearing an ankle bracelet) because of the potential of being shot. I could never live there. Over here I know that so long as I have distance from someone I'm safe. In the U.S.A. you could be walking down the street and someone might just shoot you dead because they're bored. It's messed up. Then there's the issue of the mentally ill having easy access to guns...

I think open carry is a very bad thing. It might deter some people from attacking you, but what happens if they take your gun and use it against you? I understand that it is difficult to grab a gun from a holster attached to another person, but it is possible. Even if that doesn't happen, flashing weapons is just inciting fear. Who wants to live in a society where you constantly have to carry a weapon with you for fear of attack?

Conclusion? More guns obviously result in more homicides by gun per person. Pretty obvious.

I disagree with you there. I don't think it's the number of guns but the regulation of guns. While the U.S.A. has a lot of guns, the regulation of guns is also a joke.

For comparison, in Australia after our last mass shooting in the 1990s, strict guns laws came in.

Australia:
No. guns per 100 people: 15, gun homicide rate: 0.14.

U.S.A.:
No. guns per 100 people: 88.8, gun homicide rate: 2.97.

For direct comparison, No. of guns in U.S.A. to AUS is 5.92 x greater, homicide rate per 100,000 is 21.2 x greater.

 

[Oddisee]

I'm not entirely sure why people still have this argument about the gun laws in the USA.

It's obvious guns haven't done the USA any good over the past couple of years.

It's also obvious that despite all shootings and whatever arguments you'll throw at them, a majority of gun enthusiasts will proudly pick up their gun, hold a convention and somehow use fear as an argument.

Ignoring a problem as huge as this is obviously the wrong thing to do, but I fear everyone against the current gun law will have to wait for their lucky time when the US government finally accomplishes to make a huge change to it.

I'd like to think whoever thought of the second amendment a few centuries ago, would plant their palm in their face and loudly mumble "This is not what I thought of you idiots." if they were to still live today. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if they had died from a shooting before they could say so.

Ideally I'd have all guns in the entire world disappear and have any national or international conflict solved by a good old fashioned and fair fist fight between mayors or world leaders. One can only dream though.

 

[£]

I disagree with you there. I don't think it's the number of guns but the regulation of guns. While the U.S.A. has a lot of guns, the regulation of guns is also a joke.

For comparison, in Australia after our last mass shooting in the 1990s, strict guns laws came in.

Australia:
No. guns per 100 people: 15, gun homicide rate: 0.14.

U.S.A.:
No. guns per 100 people: 88.8, gun homicide rate: 2.97.

For direct comparison, No. of guns in U.S.A. to AUS is 5.92 x greater, homicide rate per 100,000 is 21.2 x greater.

I agree with you on the count of regulation; I was vague in my conclusion there and I'm grateful that you raised that point:
-Regulation of guns IS IMPORTANT.

However, I disagree with you on the front that the amount of people owning guns is not of importance at all. I believe that the very distribution of guns, regulation or not is a risk. And obviously, the greater the distribution, and the more lax the regulation... the higher the number of deaths by gun usage. It's quite clear both variables are important, as the very statistics you've cited show.

 

[Jeshkat]

Idiotic teenagers who have no business carrying a firearm like that down the street won't put the fear of god into anybody, let alone the imaginary criminals they're going to thwart with their guns. It's a stunt performed by the exact opposite people you'd trust with a deadly weapon, lol.

basically what they said, guns should never be allowed to be carried (I strongly believe guns shouldn't be permitted to be owned at all so) in the street, definitely not in the manner they've done it either- that's not protection, it's threatening- not to "criminals" but to fricking innocent people. I don't even understand how you could attempt to defend this tbh.

 

[gimmepie]

Yeaahhh....

I don't think that open carry should even be an issue because I don't think it should be so easy for your average civilian to be carrying a gun.

 

[Oryx]

I think talking about guns in general doesn't address the post, which is about open carry. Regardless of regulations, what is the purpose of open carry? Is there any legitimate reason to open carry instead of concealed carry other than to scare people because they know you have a gun? If not, I don't see the pro of being able to open carry outweighing the con of a population terrified because you're walking around openly with a gun in a country that has had so much trouble with guns.

 

[£]

I'd say the issue with guns says a lot in itself. Openly wielding them without any penalty at all? This being completely acceptable in a modem culture? It's horrific. How many people have to die before people start to give a ♥♥♥♥ over there?

 

[Monophobia]

I'm with Orxy on this one. What real need is there for open carry? Other than scaring every person who sees you on the street so you can look like a tough cookie, that is. It really doesn't have a legitimate use. You can scream "rights" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that nothing good can come of it.

 

[Sir Codin]

What about police officers? They carry their piece out in the open all the time in America and it doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it makes me more worried and feel more oppressed.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

What about police officers? They carry their piece out in the open all the time in America and it doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it makes me more worried and feel more oppressed.

It may be a difference of culture, but it's the opposite over here. In addition to regular police officers, we recently have had a roll out of Protective Service Officers (PSOs) a division of the police force that specifically patrol train stations. They carry guns and overwhelmingly they have reduced the amount of crime at train stations and made people feel safer.

The only people who seem to disrespect police tend to be the ones either committing a crime or the uneducated. The police are there to keep the general population safe - putting themselves in the line of danger to do so. Show some respect.

 

[Hackenfall Backslash]

Sigh. I'm going to touch on this briefly and go eat pizza, because I'm tired of seeing this topic pop up all over the place. You have a right to defend yourself. I'm not worshipping the American forefathers/framers, but they were onto something when it came to government and liberty. Don't even think about pointing at Japan if you're anti-gun. You play your Japan and I raise you one United Kingdom. No guns, yet the violent crime rate is at the American level. Not violent gun crime. Violent overall crime.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, all firearms are banned. No one can obtain a gun through legal channels. Who is likelier to have a gun in this scenario: Criminals or Innocents? Who is likelier to follow laws: The people that adhere to them and go about their day-to-day like proper, responsible citizens, or the people who are defined by how much time they devote to breaking said laws? Just some food for thought.

I myself prefer to carry concealed. I'm on some Batman stuff, and don't like (potential) adversaries to see my hand before I'm ready to play it. If I can conceal it, I'm going to. Open carrying detracts from my "young professional" image. Makes me look rather crass, I find. In fact, I'd prefer to settle disputes the old fashioned way. First with diplomacy, then with fists if need be. This coming from someone on the smaller scale size-wise.

What about police officers? They carry their piece out in the open all the time in America and it doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it makes me more worried and feel more oppressed.

I find it quaint that people think you shouldn't have a right to defend yourself. I am quick to remind them that bullets fly faster than Crown Vics (police vehicles).

 

[Lotus the Cat]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, all firearms are banned. No one can obtain a gun through legal channels. Who is likelier to have a gun in this scenario: Criminals or Innocents? Who is likelier to follow laws: The people that adhere to them and go about their day-to-day like proper, responsible citizens, or the people who are defined by how much time they devote to breaking said laws? Just some food for thought.

The people that have used the guns (particularly in the mass shootings) aren't always "criminals". They were just mentally unstable. The problem is, when you make it easy to obtain a weapon, it makes it easier for those who are unstable to act out at others. Even if the target is carrying a gun as well, who is to say they will have the opportunity to defend themselves?

The U.S.A. has a high incidence of homicide in general. There is obviously more at work than just the presence of guns, but guns sure do make it easier to kill someone.